🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
-- 
Ronald van Loon     | Consider this: In the United States, an automobile is
(rvloon@cv.ruu.nl)  | stolen EVERY 14.7 SECONDS. 
3DCV Group, Utrecht |   If that statistic scares you, think how we felt when we 
The Netherlands     | made it up. - Dave Barry, "CHRISTMAS BUYERS GUIDE"