Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!ira.uka.de!fauern!lan!rommel
From: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Open letter to Microsoft (followup - rather long)
Keywords: SDK MSC 6.0 bugs friendly environment
Message-ID: <5910@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Date: 5 Dec 90 14:23:27 GMT
References: <6081@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
Reply-To: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, TU Muenchen, W. Germany
Lines: 23

In article <6081@crash.cts.com> alen@crash.cts.com (Alen Shapiro) writes:
>But now here comes that "ease of use" point again. I have had to learn
>some strange and "wonderful" things about the MS C compiler, some of
>which were badly documented or undocumented in order to "coax" the
>compiler to deal with code that works, without modification, on 2 other
>systems and 3 other compilers (including the mac under LSC4.0). Does
>that not suggest that there is something wrong with MSC? These other
>compilers have provided mechanisms to cope with segmentation,
>overlaying, internal compiler memory allocation, speedy compilation,
>compliance with standards, internal consistancy of options and accurate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joke. I have heard from Mac programmers, that, for example, their C
compiler syntactically accepts prototypes but does not use the
information that they provide in ANY way. This is not compliance with the
ANSI C standard although ANSI C source files are accepted. :-)

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel
 * Munich
 * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
 */