Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!lvc
From: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <3684@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 89 14:04:46 GMT
References: <3627@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP>, djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
> I've seen this sort of thing on the net before, and frankly, I don't
> like it.  Somebody is using some engineering technique or tool, or
> in this case, simply investigating the relative worth of a particular
> tool, and along comes the implication that the company produces bad
> product.

I've seen this sort of thing on the net before, and frankly, I don't
like.  Somebody makes a one sentence remark, and then someone jumps all
over it and puts words in the others mouth.  Your jumping to conclusions
about my motivations.  I'm a very conservative person when it comes to
taking certain types of risks.  Frankly, I'm not satisfied with the state
of software technology well enough to be comfortable with a pacemaker
being run by one.  Okay, some things just won't exist without software,
that's not the point.  The point is, where possible, I'd rather sit on
the sidelines and watch other people be the "first".  You won't catch me
being a parachute tester, or a hang glider tester.  It just isn't worth it
to me.

You wanted an apology, okay.  I'm sorry you're jumped to conclusions about
my motivations.  Try not to do it again.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or lvc@cbnews.att.com