Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn!n8443916
From: n8443916@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Open letter to Microsoft re: SDK and C6.0 (long)
Keywords: sdk msc6.0 compiler windows nasty horrible stuff
Message-ID: <1990Nov28.180625.16560@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 90 18:06:25 GMT
References: <5880@crash.cts.com>
Organization: Western Washington University, Bellingham
Lines: 80

In article <5880@crash.cts.com> alen@crash.cts.com (Alen Shapiro) writes:
>What follows is a (mostly) unemotional report of difficulties to
>date with Microsoft C and SDK. The cost to me and my company of
>having to do Microsoft's QA job has been enormous. I have a task
.
.
.
>REPORT FOLLOWS;
>
>1) nmake uses up global heap....a "multi C-module nmake" will
>   fail with an out-of-memory error, restarting will continue
>   on for a while and fail after a few more modules have compiled.
>   Solution ... use "nmk" (especially important when compiling
>   within windows itself).

At least Microsoft finally came out with a MAKE that really is 
a make, instead of that bleeping non-standard make they shipped for
years.  I would suggest PolyMake (which has some nice makefile extensions
and runs on UNIX, DOS and many other platforms.

>


... Specific windows related problems deleted
>
>5) Why do I need 2 compilers 1 for development and the other for
>   production? Why is the standard comiler so slow (an hour to
>   compile on the PS2/80, (15 minutes on the macII and 5 minutes

    I've been fighting MSC since 3.0 (which actually wasn't bad by
the standards of those days.  The latest incarnation is slug slow
on my 25MHZ 386, and I've given up reporting bugs to Microsoft, faster
and safer to just ifdef special cases for MSC .  


>think). IHMO I've had to put up with far more pain than I should


	I am continually amazed that Microsoft can develop their own
products using the low quality tools they ship.  I often wonder if
the programmers all have copies of Turbo C in hidden directories on
their systems and can HOT KEY back to MSC when a supervisor walks by :-).
>________________
>EMOTION WARNING ON..... I try not to be a wimp,
>when it comes to porting - there are always difficulties, I try
>to write portable "standard" C code and have 15 years experience
>in C development (including a PhD along the way). I am a Unix
>guru (kernel and user), write mac-toolbox applications, PC
>applications (including TSRs and graphics). I don't think I'm a
>lightweight, but I am turned into a drivelling idiot by the CR*P
>I've had to put up with from the development environment supplied
>by Microsoft. Are there any kindred spirits out there or have I
>finally entered wimphood?
>EMOTION OFF...(I think)

	I can and will develop using the Microsoft tools, and am having
very few problems right now porting our ~60,000 line CAD product
to windows.  On the other hand, Microsoft is by far my least favorite
development platform (others are Amiga, UNIX, and Turbo C for DOS).
Living in Washington I continually hear programmers glorify Microsoft,
and am forced to put up with the often arrogant villification of Borland
and other compiler makers by Microsoft techs.  Some of these idealogues
should try working with other environments, I think it would change
their minds.

	The GOOD news is that Borland has gotten over their own 
ideological prejudice against Windows and will ship a C++ toolkit that
is a complete repacement for the Windows SDK early next year.  I hope
to quickly toss MSC 6.0 back on the garbage heap next to my bug ridden
copies of 5.0 and 4.0, and the SDK with it.

	One more comment.  My favorite Microsoft product is OS/2.  It is
also just about the only one that Microsoft can't seem to sell :-(.

// *************************************************************** //
John Gossman
SoftSource      (206)676-0999 Phone
WWU Math Dept.
My employer stands behind all my opinions, except in public.
// ************************************************************** //