Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!dyndata!dan
From: dan@dyndata.UUCP (Dan Everhart)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Problems of Zortech C++ v2.1
Message-ID: <693@dyndata.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 90 05:54:31 GMT
References: <82035@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <31714@cup.portal.com>
  <1990Jul16.145027.1434@tc.fluke.COM> <31804@cup.portal.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Dynamic Data & Electronics, Edmonds WA
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com's message of 17 Jul 90 03:11:29 GMT

In article <31804@cup.portal.com> Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com writes:

    I am very happy for you. The fact remains, however, that I gave source
   to 3 compilers (Zortech, a CFRONT, and Turbo C). 2 of those compilers ate
   the source happily. Zortech was not one of those. Please feel free to
   draw yor own conclusions.

I conclude that Zortech is unlucky.  From bugs I've seen discussed
here and my own experiences with Turbo and Ztc it seems to me that
each of the three compilers has bugs which the other two handle
correctly.  You just hit one of the Zortech bugs.  Unlucky for them
since it motivated bad press from you.

However, their giving you misinformation on a tech support call
(telling you that a compiler internal error message was a random
number and probably your fault) is abysmally poor performance.  I hope
you got the name of the support person, and can stay mad long enough
to document the call in writing to Zortech.  It would be doing their
customers (me) a favor.