Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!ucla-cs!admin.cognet.ucla.edu!casey
From: casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: SR10 librarian (lbr) functionality loss
Message-ID: <17798@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 11 Nov 88 03:27:10 GMT
References: <558@nikhefh.hep.nl> <3f6dd85c.ba7d@apollo.COM> <563@nikhefh.hep.nl> <3f960034.ba7d@apollo.COM>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: casey@cs.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Program
Lines: 53

| From: geiser@apollo.COM (Wayne Geiser)
| 
| | From: e07@nikhefh.hep.nl (Eric Wassenaar)
| | 
| | One is forced to keep all individual files for debugging purposes, since
| | line numbers are relative to the input file to the compiler. This is an
| | administrative burden.
| 
| Not so.  When this problem was discovered a solution was implemented.  It
| involves placing %LINE <number>[,<file>] directives in each "split-out"
| file so as to point back to the original file.  This can be done
| automatically by the same shell script that breaks the sources apart (it
| is in the one I wrote).  Note: Don't look for %LINE before SR10.1.
| 
| I'm sorry, I thought you wished to have a technical conversation on the
| problem you were having.
| 
| I understand your complaints.  However, we must follow the direction that
| Marketing tells us (through research) will generate the most customers
| (and, therefore, the most money).  If you wish to argue that the
| direction Apollo has chosen is not the best, someone from the Marketing
| organization will have to take over.

  What is this?  Is Apollo just in the business of alienating customers
now or what?  He tells you there's a problem with your fix to his
complaint, and then you come back at him ``no there isn't ... but yes
there is (because his problem is with *SR10.0* - not your *SR10.1*)''.

  I'm not bothered by this particular problem because I don't do fortran,
and if I did, I would probably use separate files - it's just a lot more
convenient.  But I really feel sorry for Eric having to battle this
typical egocentric Apollo attitude.  Apollo seems to feel that the world
revolves about themselves and damn anyone who thinks differently.

  You should have replied:

	``You're right.  This is a problem.  We've worked out a solution
	that involves placing placing %LINE <number>[,<file>] directives
	in each "split-out" file so as to point back to the original
	file.  This can be done automatically by the same shell script
	that breaks the sources apart (it is in the one I wrote).

	Unfortunately this new %LINE directive won't be available till
	SR10.1.  We're sorry for the inconvenience.  If this is a
	debilitating problem we can send you a new compiler and our new
	shell script to tide you over till SR10.1 comes out.''

I think we all understand that standards are important, but customer
support is your primary duty.  If you don't have that, you'll just
continue to lose market share.  As Eric said (paraphrased :-)) ``If it's
standard but doesn't work, it isn't worth shit.''

Casey