Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!cadsi
From: cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland shafts C programmers AGAIN!
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.232713.7594@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 91 23:27:13 GMT
References: <1991Mar30.083246.16450@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Lines: 26

From article <1991Mar30.083246.16450@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, by symtam@lion.uwaterloo.ca (Simon Tam):
> In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu>, cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
> 
> Just out of curiousity, why are you wondering why Borland should come out
> with their own compiler?  Is it that people don't like using the Microsoft
> Help Compiler?  I know that building a help file is kind of cumbersome and
> that an integrated building environment would be much nicer.  What else is
> the problem?

I own the MS SDK.  It cost me about $325.  Thats a lot for a Help compiler
to the newcomer to Windows.  Remember, barring the DEBUG kernels,
the Help compiler is all that is missing from full development.  Borland
claimed many things for which they need to deliver as yet.  The Help
compiler is one.

I suppose there is an (immoral?) option, borrow someone elses Help compiler
from the SDK.  Fact is, supposedly when you bought Borland C++, the Help
compiler was part of the deal.  I guess its your choice as to whether it
matters where it comes from.  Are you licensed to the Help Compiler, or
not???

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Tom Hite					|  The views expressed by me |
|Manager, Product development			|  are mine, not necessarily |
|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc.	|  the views of CADSI.       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|