🚀 go-pugleaf

Lines: 128

In article <5huhjh$76m@client2.news.psi.net>,
os2@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) wrote:
>In article <d2YQz0E6AF+K092yn@momeraths.org>,
>Sysop <MarchHare@momeraths.org> wrote:

>>mind.  Either complain it isn't available "separately" or complain it 
>
>Sure, to get the new version, I have to buy Devcon while the old version
>came with the compiler.  You on the other hand, bought a non-ibm
>compiler (I did the same mistake with borland and learned quickly) and
>you are surprized that the developers kit wasn't included....I am not
>the one complaining that it didn't come with your compiler, you are.

Ah, twisting words again, I see.  I was complaining about your statement
that you cannot get the Toolkit separately, since it is a crock.  I'm 
_not_ complaining about DevCon, you are.  Besides, there is a Toolkit 
available with Watcom, but admittedly dated.  It is not a matter of 
requiring the separate DevCon Toolkit, unless I want something Warp 
specific or just want something more up to date.  Even the following 
statement shows that _I_ am not complaining about it.

>>doesn't come with the compiler.  As far as I'm concerned it is available
>>separately from the compiler, which is a good thing, IMO.  I can use any
>
>As I said, it is not.  It is available if you purchase Devcon, you can't
>purchase it by itself which would cost a lot less.

I honestly doubt that it would cost less.  Novell is another company 
that packages things together in their CD's to lower costs for 
distribution.  Some companies, such as Compaq, even distribute entire 
program suites on CDROM, and you call them up to get the program key to 
unlock it.  There is a certain economy of scale in not having to package
and mail separate items.

>Those who bought the IBM compiler with the developers kit included
>cannot upgrade it by simply upgrading the developers kit since there is
>no such upgrade.  You have to buy Devcon to copy something off it.  Then
>there is the question of compatibilities etc.  Now that is what I
>complained about.

So, you have to buy DevCon to upgrade the Toolkit.  Big deal, so does 
everyone else.  Like I said before, there honestly is little reason that
anyone _has_ to upgrade in the first place.  Buy a subscription, get the
upgrade, don't renew it right away, but wait until you feel the urge 
again.

>>reasonable compiler and have results that do what I want instead of 
>>having to be tied down to one specific compiler that may or may not do 
>>everything I want.
>
>Well, Borland discontinued its OS/2 compiler.  Watcom discontinued its
>OS/2 VxRexx or the Watcom compiler.  My compiler is still in the market,
>and guess what, there is an upcoming forum meeting in the Detroit area
>which I got an invitation for.  Call Watcom and ask them about
>java, smalltalk....or DB/2 support, etc ect.

The Watcom compiler is still on the market.  I still get ads urging me 
to upgrade.  Smalltalk is a separate language and compiler.  Java 
started as a separate language and compiler.  I bought Watcom for the 
C/C++.  If I need something else, I'll buy something else.

...

>Yeah, there was even another hobbyist who used beta TCPIP developers 
kit
>on that thing and set out something to the world that would crash for
>that reason.....that it was beta....You don't use beta for programming
>products....And if you have a product that is not dependent on any of
>the moving crap, then you don't need the beta's for bracing yourself
>against the next release of bag of bugs called OS/2.

A beta is not guaranteed.  That is why it is a beta.  It is put there 
for those who are interested in testing it and to get bug reports before
being moved to release code.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If the 
hobbyist sent out release code based upon a beta, then they were wrong. 
There aren't any guarantees when it comes to programming, but basing 
your work on a beta is just asking for problems.

>>It's all irrelevant anyhow, especially since it is in the .apps 
>>newsgroup. You just don't get it, do you?  Take your advocacy bullshit 
>>to the .advocacy group.
>
>Actually, you are the one advocating OS/2....I am pointing out
>realities...

Actually, I'm advocating a certain amount of whining be confined to an 
advocacy group.  That's what it is there for.  After all, if only 
pro advocates visited the advocacy group, it would be a little 
one-sided and boring.  I read apps to ask questions/give advice/make 
comments about applications.  If you really want to blow off steam about
IBM, maybe you should take it there.  Twisting words about not being 
able to upgrade your Toolkit, when in fact you can, just doesn't belong 
here.  Even more, whining about IBM hardware has nothing to do with 
apps.

...

>>So, don't install the betas.  Or, is that too difficult for you?  I 
know >>it is hard to locate the TOOLKIT\BETA directory :)
>
>And I said, there is no use to purchase it unless you need the beta's.

Then why your "concern" over upgrading in the first place?  What is the 
real reason you need to upgrade?  For the silly notebook feature?  A 
newer SOM?  If your program doesn't use these features, don't bother. 
If it does, then upgrade it and uncheck the beta box when you install 
it.  Quite a few companies these days include betas in their SDK 
releases.  Please, tell me why IBM should do it differently.

...

>>I'm asking for trouble every time I type "make", "dmake" or any 
>>variation thereof.  Hasn't killed me or my machine yet.
>
>;) Good luck...

I could use a little of that on any day, regardless whether or not I'm 
using a computer.

John

-- 
//------------------------------------------------------------------------
// momerath@apk.net                    sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT`
// MarchHare@momeraths.org                 ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD
//                                           ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA
//                                            .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA
                     In case of stupidity, break glass.