Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!oxtrap!mudos!mju
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Trouble compiling flip with TurboC 1.5
Message-ID: <569.24C7A4A4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 21 Jul 89 18:57:06 GMT
References: <23591@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <26557@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: A neat desk is a sign of a crazy person.
Lines: 46

In article <26557@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
[TC 1.0 and 1.5 ssignal()/gsignal() vs Unix signal()/raise()]
 >No, but it did have a signal() style function named, for no apparent
 >reason, ssignal(). This is a classic case of, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT,
 >DO IT RIGHT, OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL. This is just close enough to UNIX
 >practice (the documentation even claims "available on UNIX systems") to
 >invite the expectation of compatability, when in fact, the function is
 >about as useful as the proverbial "teats on a boar hog."
 >[...]
 >Finally, there is in my own mind, absolutely no excuse for reviewers of
 >TC 1.0 to have NOT discovered the many bugs in floating point
 >operations, in the larger memory models, etc. I had to try only one or
 >two programs to find bugs, and I'm an historian, not a programmer!!!!!

I'm going to take some time with you, Earl, because it seems that you have
the intelligence to comprehend what I'm going to say.

Do you know what a version number means?  Do you know what it means
when a company releases a revision to a program, and says "this-and-this
bug was fixed"?  It means that there was a bug in the original release.
And they've fixed it in the new release.  Now, if your programs don't 
compile or run correctly with the bug, do you know what you do?  You buy 
(or upgrade to) the new version.  You don't sit around and bitch about
how bad the old version was, or complain about the bug (that has been
fixed).  Now, admittedly, Borland probably should have tested TC 1.0
a little more thoroughly before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public.
However, if you looked through the manual, tried compiling a few programs,
and discovered the bugs in the compiler -- I'm sure that Borland would
have been willing to either send you a fix or take back your compiler.
However, sitting around, *after the bug has been fixed*, and complaining
about it, doesn't do anybody any good.

Why is it that, when a user has trouble with a PD/freeware/shareware
program, they are always told to upgrade to the most recent version...
But when a user has trouble with a piece of commercial software,
they just sit around and flame away, even though their copy is several
versions out of date?

Followups directed to alt.flame, where they belong.

--  
Marc Unangst
UUCP smart    : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
UUCP dumb     : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju
UUCP dumb alt.: ...!{ames,rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju
Internet      : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us