Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!evax!hill
From: hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: C on OS/2
Message-ID: <1991Mar31.023540.16047@evax.arl.utexas.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 91 02:35:40 GMT
References: <2456@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> <292@nazgul.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Science Engineering Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 36



    I hate flaming on the NET but:


WHY IN HECK does ZTC++ have PROTECTION VIOLATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (OS/2 Version)
One can "dance around" the PV's buy not using their Workbench and by
puttting flags in a certain order, but --

 THIS IS NOT ACCEPTIBLE BEHAVIOR FOR A COMMERCIAL ** COMPILER ***

   Its does not instill me with a great amount of confidence in the
Zortech series of products, their programmers and most specifically
their QT department or beta testers.
 
   I realize that application WILL have BUGS, but guys come on --
PROTECTION VIOLATIONS! These seem to me to be the MOST obvious form of
bugs in a application, they are VERY easy to spot (Half :-) ) and are
pretty specific in their meaning.

   Now I am a programmer and I realize the AMOUNT of BLOOD, SWEAT and
TEARS in writing, debugging and "specing" code. (And I don't work in
the REAL world yet!) So -- When is there going to be a bug fix?
Zortech's other products seem MUCH stabler....

   ( All above statements/flames were generated after watching a ZTC++
Development System crash and burn on a P70 w/6-8M RAM and running OS/2
1.2 and 1.3 EE) 


  
-- 
 adam hill --  hill@evax.uta.edu        ASOCC - University of Texas at UTA
     I programmed for three days          Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA!
     And heard no human voices.              Amiga... Multimedia NOW!  
     But the hard disk sang. - TZoP              Born To Run SVR4