Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:2380 comp.sys.ibm.pc:22989
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Versions of Zortech Compiler
Keywords: ill-founded flames
Message-ID: <4471@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 89 17:51:47 GMT
References: <212@imspw6.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 49

In article <212@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes:
>I've seen several such flames concerning the Zortech compiler.  Basically,
>the people writing these flames don't seem to have any real idea of what is
>involved in writing a C++ compiler.  From what I hear, the front end to the
>Zortech compiler represents about five times the coding effort of a typical
>C front end.  

Perhaps I don't know how much effort is involved in writing a C++ compiler,
but I can recognize schlocky distribution practices and poor documentation.
Just because a compiler is complex doesn't excuse:

1) Distributing more than one version at a time (I received my version 1.05
   in Nlate October).
2) Distributing a compiler so buggy that it crashes even on small modules,
   billing it as other than a "beta" version.  There is no way I could 
   recommend this thing for other than toy use.
3) Inability to get one of the distribution files -- zero length on the 
   distribution media, and junk sent in the mail after two phone calls.
4) No notification of a fixed version (1.07, what makes this "baseline"?),
   even after I called them (at my expense) giving them a detailed bug
   report in November.

>They (Zortech) apparently went through
>several versions in quick succession getting rid of the last two or
>three remaining bugs.  1.06, in particular, lasted about a week.

Fine, where is my version 1.07?  I will phone them today and ask.
 
>Zortech seems to be strong on talent (Mr. Bright et. al.) and on
>good-spiritedness (the idea of selling something like the C++ compiler
>for $100 or thereabouts) and a trifle short on organization.  America is
>a free country, however;  if you prefer dealing with a company which is
>longer on organization and shorter on talent, there are all kinds of
>options open to you.  For instance, you could mail Bill Gates a check
>for $1500 and ask him to put you on the waiting list for a copy of HIS
>native code C++ compiler for MS-DOS.  Don't, however, hold your breath
>whilst waiting for it;  it's liable to be quite a little wait.


Is $100 for a compiler that doesn't work a good buy?  Even if written by
a talented person?

Does anybody know when Borland is coming out with Turbo-C++ at $150?  Even
their much-maligned (and deservedly so) Turbo-Prolhad fewer bugs than
Zortech C++, and Borland send a free upgrade without even being asked!

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM
Standard Disclaimers Apply