🚀 go-pugleaf

>> On Wed, 10 Nov 1993 21:15:58 GMT, przemek@rrdbartok.nist.gov
>> (Przemek Klosowski) said:

  PK> Would Workshop and SGI cc use proprietary extensions to the
  PK> executable format?  Does anyone know if there is a patch or
  PK> workaround to be used with gcc?

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.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands.

In <MUTS.93Nov13001723@compi.hobby.nl> muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes:

| >> On Wed, 10 Nov 1993 21:15:58 GMT, przemek@rrdbartok.nist.gov
| >> (Przemek Klosowski) said:
| 
|   PK> Would Workshop and SGI cc use proprietary extensions to the
|   PK> executable format?  Does anyone know if there is a patch or
|   PK> workaround to be used with gcc?
| 
| 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.

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

The most beautiful things in the world are              |   Dave Olson
those from which all excess weight has been             |   Silicon Graphics
removed.  -Henry Ford                                   |   olson@sgi.com

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

>> On Sun, 14 Nov 93 04:42:06 GMT, olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave
>> Olson) said:

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

Adding features is fine (although usually they're no good and cannot
be used because those who choose Unix systems choose also for
platform-independent applications, and those of SGI aren't
particularly worthwhile IMO) but not when it breaks compatability as
badly as SGI does.

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

It doesn't have to do with money, but with compatability. I want to
use the same tools on every platform (like compilers, debugger) and
this is one of the big plusses of Unix systems, but less and less for SGI.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands.

>> On Sun, 14 Nov 1993 19:37:42 GMT, przemek@rrdbartok.nist.gov
>> (Przemek Klosowski) said:

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

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

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

Amen. I didn't say that there is nothing to say in favour of SGI. We
didn't choose them for nothing. But indeed if they think they're gonna
be that big that they can get such attitude like IBM and DEC used to
have (still have?) than the other advantages won't be enough anymore.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands.