Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!odi!benson From: benson@odi.com (Benson Margulies) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Bugs in the AT&T Toolchest program 'nmake' Message-ID: <362@odi.ODI.COM> Date: 20 May 89 12:14:18 GMT References: <1640@internal.Apple.COM> <6561@ardent.UUCP> <11562@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Reply-To: benson@odi.com (Benson Margulies) Distribution: usa Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA Lines: 26 In article mcgrath@paris.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) writes: >In article <11562@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes: Some day, Mr. Krell will realize that those of us who don't work for AT&T are only very marginally interested in the existence of wonderful software unavailable to us. We have been informed that this new version will not only not be treated as a toolchest upgrade, it won't be available at all. Perhaps AT&T is saving it up to be the only make in SysVr4, incompatibly breaking all existing makefiles? :-) If a new version is built in the middle of a forest, and no one can enter the forest to see it, is it really there? The version of nmake that exists is ridden with bugs. The code quality is so poor as to make bugfixing an endless exercise in "fix this, break that." Much of the functionality is specified in the makefile language, which is completely unstructured, has no conditional construct other than "comment out the end of the line", and inadequately documented. Just sign me, "a very unsatisfied ex-nmake customer." -- Benson I. Margulies