🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.093855.17822@cv.ruu.nl> rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) writes:

> In <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

> |"  I find it interesting that when a poster makes a very cogent point
> |"about how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be in order
> |"for you to purchase it, not one poster that has followed up has come
> |"up with an answer.

> A compiler needs to be a lot better than GCC - that has been said multiple
> times and I cannot agree more.

> |"All they do is harp about what a wonderful thing
> |"GCC is because it "ups the ante" or "establishes a floor" or weeds out
> |"the bad software out there.  But not one has answered the poster's point.
> |"That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
> |"took a single course in economics.

> The only reason that people need commercial compilers is support.
> GCC does not guarantee support, or even that it 'works'. If it doesn't work,
> you can send in a bug-report. It will eventually be fixed - hopefully. With
> commercial compilers you have paid a certain company to give you a working
> product - if it does not function as it should, you have the right to complain
> and demand that your problem is fixed ASAP. In other words, you get what you
------^^^^^^
> pay for.

Hmmm...
'demand'?
I think not.

--
#include <std_disclaimer>
"If it runs emacs it's a computer, otherwise it's a peripheral." - me
"I have two kitchen sinks: emacs and perl" - me
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Kevin Johnson         kjj@phx.mcd.mot.com | ...!asuvax!mcdphx!pondscum!kjj  |
|                       qygt70@email.mot.com                                  |
| Information Technologies Network Administrator  Motorola MCG                |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'