🚀 go-pugleaf

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> 
> Honorable Paul David Fox
>       wrote on 18 Mar (in article <332E593D.5864@lehman.com>):
> 
> =No - but you miss the point. I'm not saying MS-DOS and Windoze are
> =good. They are total and utter crap closed systems. However, MS-Word,
> =Excel, Lotus, Corel, etc, etc are truly good apps - they have a
> =desirable factor about them. I am proud to run MSVC and Word on
> =my system.
> 
> The deeper one goes in
> MSVC!! Wow. Seldom have I seen a crapier environment. No wonder --
> with the OS lacking the neccessary utilities they had to put
> everything under one roof. And with user-base, which considers
> ``vi'' complicated, they made it for dummies... And it just does
> not work in many cases.  

To some extent I agree - i do not use the GUI environment.
I treat my Windows machine like Unix: I have lots of
command windows. The MS C compiler is good and fast. The make
utility is ok, and the debuggers leave a lot to be desired.

But from that same GUI tool I can read the MSDN documentation and
_nothing_ in the Unix world comes close to the MSDN documentation.

> Why do I need pdb, idb and ndb crap to
> debug my program? Why does gdb survive perfectly without them,

Alas, you fail to understand what these do. Ever tried to use
GCC with the -g switch on a huge project. Have you seen the
size of the executable and .obj files created. The reason
these files are so huge is that each and every one has duplicated
copies of every single structure in every single header file.

In Sun's C compiler, they have dont something similar to MS - the
debug info is left in the .o files and not in the .exe file.

Those files that MS create are there to give you faster compiling
and linking. (Their compilers are fast; their linkers are stinkingly
slow).
 
> shows me the stack and variables perfectly? What's wrong with tags
> mechanism and what was the urge of creating the stupid browsing,
> which keeps everything in binary format and, again does not work?

Again you fail to understand. Tags are great until you hit context
sensitive things which require help from the compiler to figure out.
 
> Why do I have to resolve all the symbols at compile time, even if
> I create an so (that's dll for you)?

Because MS implementation of DLLs (shlibs) are total crap. Thats
why Solaris (and other SVR4) systems are so good. The shlib mechanism
in SVR4 has evolved to the point of usability.

As I said in my original post, the underlying mechanisms of
Windows are total and utter crap. However the end result sells
heaps and heaps of $$$.
 
> Word! Did you know, you can make image "italic"? :)

I'm totallly sure its useful to someone. But then what choices
do I have on Unix? Sure I can buy one or two commercial apps but
my ability to share my files with people around the world is
very limited. Word is a great baseline application: it does nearly
everything you want. Any competitor has to be significantly better
to consider it.

Remember - we all suffered nroff/troff for nearly 20 years.
 
> =I am ashamed to run CDE on my system and hear people trying to
> =get to grips with Vi/Emacs/Textedit or whatever.
> 
> Good for you. CDE smells micey...
> 
> =If you want to create a brilliant looking app that people want to
> =have on their system (e.g. netscape, Doom, etc) and you want to
> =write it in Obj-C or Eiffel or whatever, then feel free. I will
> =be glad for you.
> 
> People! What a measurement... People are stupid. Some of them are
> so stupid, they prefer "brilliant looking app" to the one that is
> "brilliant working"...

Yes. Think about it. Everything you say is partially true -
MSVC is crap - its constricting when you compare it to your
Unix environment. But on the other hand people fall over themselves
to buy it. Why? The average person doesnt really care how these
things are implemented. You may do, but most people dont. 

If people _really_ cared, Bill Gates would not be the richest 
man in the world. MS-DOS would have terminated at MS-DOS 2.0.
 
> =But my point really is not to worry about the implementation -
> =just get the product to market and make the world a happier
> =place. I dont care if its written in <insert-fave-language-here>,
> =just make Unix a survivable O/S in the year 20xx.
> 
> Despite your whining, Unix seems pretty much alive. I increased
> the number of Unix machines around me from 1 to 7 in 2 years (at
> home, at work, at friend's...).

Good - keep up the good work. But any corporate environment is
putting PCs on peoples desks, not Unix machines. And whilst they do
that anyone who produces commercial Unix apps has to be very brave
to ignore the Windows world. Even Netscape who pioneered a
cross-platform browser 
have to face the reality that Unix is not important as far as the
browser war goes.
 
>         -mi
> --
>         "Windows for dummies"

-- 
_______________________________________________________
| Paul David Fox          Lehman Brothers.             |
| ######################  E-mail: pfox@lehman.com      | 
| # This space for rent#  Home: fox@crisp.demon.co.uk  | 
| ######################  Tel: +44 171 601 0011 x6025  | 
This message is boring.