🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <lm7r7ji@zuni.esd.sgi.com> olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson) writes:
   In <MUTS.93Nov13001723@compi.hobby.nl> muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes:


   | SGI uses proprietary extensions more and more, and I am beginning to
   | regret more and more that we ever bought SGI. There is no workaround
   | as far as I know.

   SGI has had "propietary" extensions in its compilers for *at least*
   6 years.  That is to say, we have added features, etc.  That's what
   distinguishes most 'real' computer companies from their competitors;
   they add features.  Otherwise everybody is building clones, which
   may be good for prices (and to be fair, compatibility), but isn't
   terribly good for adding value, new features, new capabilities,
   etc.

Well, SGI excels in graphic hardware and software; nobody can touch
the price/performance yet. As to your compilers, well, they may be
good, but inasmuch as I could justify paying $4000 for Workshop, I
would not feel that a similar amount of money is justified for your C
compiler, especially since the C++ is separate and costs another four
thousands.

Please, SGI, don't get trapped in the attitude that almost did in IBM, DEC,
and so many other high-tech companies.... 


   If you can afford to buy Workshop (it ain't cheap), you can certainly
   afford to buy the SGI development system.

No, we can't---not if the only reason is to be compatible with WorkShop.
We would rather not buy WorkShop.

--
			przemek klosowski (przemek@rrdstrad.nist.gov)
			Reactor Division (bldg. 235), E111
			National Institute of Standards and Technology
			Gaithersburg, MD 20899,      USA

			(301) 975 6249 tel
			(301) 921 9847 fax