Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!sjsca4!poffen
From: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland shafts C programmers AGAIN!
Message-ID: <1991Apr2.210917.14416@sj.ate.slb.com>
Date: 2 Apr 91 21:09:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: sj.1991Apr2.210917.14416
References: <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: poffen@SunOS (Russ Poffenberger)
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies, ATE division, San Jose, Ca.
Lines: 50

In article <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes:
>In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes:
>>In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>>>From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman):
>>>> 
>>>> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or
>>>> not included.  Borland has explained this away by saying that they 
>>>> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell.
>>>> 
>>>
>>>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet??????
>>

[lots of whining deleted]

>>
>>Glenn
>
>Well, if you feel that strongly about it and don't think that you want to
>exercise you right to upgrade at this moment and don't feel that BC++ was
>worth it.  THEN CALL UP BORLAND'S CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK FOR
>AN "rETURN MERCHANDISE AUTHORIZATION NUMBER".
>
>I have a feeling that Borland will take it back and then in a few months when 
>the Windows based IDE and and the class libraries (ObjectWindows) are 
>included you can re-order it.
>
>But for the meantime, please stop this whining like a four year old.
>You are responsible for your own actions.  If you feel you made a mistake
>try to correct and be more careful next time.  The rest of us do not
>have to hear your screaming.
>
>I have found BC++ to be 1000 times easy to use for developing my Windows
>applications than C 6.0a and the SDK (which I own)  The upgrade price
>was worth it if only for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit (LP $199.95).  
>I will never have to look at a .RC file ever again.
>

I have to agree here 100%. I too own SDK and MSC and can tell you that working
with BC++ is much better, the compiler and linker options are much simpler and
I can create C++ classes and such for it. This is a big win, not to mention
that it is half the price of Microsoft's environment.

I was impressed by the fact that I could return it within 30 days for a full
refund if I wasn't satisfied. Microsoft should provide that! :-)

Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             (408)437-5254