Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!nth!loyd
From: loyd@nth.UUCP (Loyd Blankenship)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Need recommendation on Modula-2 compiler
Summary: get real
Message-ID: <406@nth.UUCP>
Date: 27 Dec 88 00:12:25 GMT
References: <2058@van-bc.UUCP> <403@nth.UUCP> <13030@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Nth Graphics, Ltd., Austin, TX
Lines: 102

In article <13030@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes:


>In article <403@nth.UUCP> loyd@nth.UUCP (Loyd Blankenship) writes a
>scathing criticism of TDI's compiler.
>
>     Personally, I don't think that it's that bad.  I've successfully
>written a modestly sized program in it without too many problems.  I'm now
>in the process of writing an interpreter for an object-oriented language in
>it (not a small project).  Here's some answers to his points:
>
>>1) The editor eats 50K of RAM every time it is invoked.  The only way to
>>   recover the RAM is rebooting.
>
>     Their editor is lousy anyway.  Don't use it.  MG or DME or just about
>any other editor is superior.  MG in particular has the capability to be
>customized to be syntax-sensitive.
>
>>2) The editor sometimes finds errors, and sometimes doesn't.  Completely
>>   random in functionality.
>
>     Again, don't use TDI's editor.  Use the public domain program m2error
>(available on Fish) which will invariably give the correct error code and
>location.
 
    Hmmmmm.  So if I buy a car and the engine doesn't work, your suggestion
to stop whining about the crappy engine that came with the car and put in
a *real* engine, right?
 
>>3) The example code given (the BOX code specifically) does not compile. 
>>   Debugging is left as an excercise to the purchaser.
>
>     I won't argue with you here.  I don't know, myself.  In my book,
>compiling example code is usually a waste of time, unless it does something
>in particular that you need.
 
    But Dan, if you provide someone with example code that won't compile, 
that probably means that there's an error in it somewhere (or an error in the 
compiler- 50/50 either way with TDI.)  What's the bleedin' point of providing
non-working example code?  "Here's some code that kinda might work, we aren't
sure, but take a look at it, and if you fix it up, let us know."
 
>>4) In the definition files, several variables and types are defined wrong.
>>   It's been long enough that I don't remember specific examples.
>
>     Again, no argument.  I haven't personally encountered any of these.  
>Is this in the documentation, or on the files actually provided on the
>disks?  I haven't yet encountered any errors in the files provided on the
>disks.  If the definition file is wrong, well then I would just use DecSym
>to generate one from the .sym file.  Haven't had a need to try that yet, so
>it may not work.
 
    The errors were in the documentation.  The fact that I could recreate my
own version of the documentation in no way obviates TDI from putting correct
information in the original.
 
>>5) The documentation is the worst collection of vauge and misleading
>>   statements it's ever been my misfortune to wade through.
>
>     I must have backlevel documentation.  Mine is fairly short, clear, and
>concise.
 
    You must.
 
        >>6) The index is wrong about 25% of the time.
>
>     You mean you don't grep the .def files on the distribution disks?
 
    No Dan, I don't.  Y'see, I have this little quirk about using a manual to
look something up occasionally, so I expect the index to tell me where to 
look.  See #4 above.
 
>>7) Customer support is non-existent.  When you call on the phone (I tried
>>   both the UK & the US phone #'s), the person who knows anything about it
>>   is 'not available', and not *once* in over 20 attempts did anyone ever 
>>   return my call.
>
>     I haven't needed this yet, so I wouldn't know.  I get most of my
>support from other users, when necessary.
>
>Dan Hankins
 
    Oh good.  How fortunate for the other users.  
 
    Dan, why are you making excuses for these weasels?  I'm complaining about
an obviously inferior product, and you sit and give me ways to work around 
TDI fuckups.  The point is, I *SHOULDN'T* have to use another editor, and I
*SHOULDN'T* have to rebuild my own documentation because they were to {lazy|
careless|stupid} to do it correctly.  And I certainly shouldn't have to rely
on other users to support a product!  
    With Lattice, I could actually *USE* the editor that came with the package,
and the documentation was correct and reflected the contents of the manuals!
Wow!  What a concept!  Plus every question I've ever had was cheerfully and
quickly answered by placing one phone call.  And yes, Lattice does return
calls when they say they will.

 
Loyd Blankenship     cs.utexas.edu!nth!loyd   (UUCP)
 Nth Graphics Ltd
Austin, TX  78758

Disclaimer: These Opinions are Mine.  Mine, you hear me?   Leave them alone!