!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Thu Apr 6 14:22:50 2000

please see embedded comments below.


----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Murillo-Sanchez <cem14_at_cornell.edu>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!

> Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> > You can't blame Microsoft for allowing YOU to write buggy code. I've
> > been shown a case where it's impossible to write the code so it
> > because of a limitation on the language's interpreter or compiler. It
> > not help you do things the way you'd like, but I've never been shown a
> > where it forces you to write bug-infested code.
> Dick: you obviously have not had to deal with nasty surprises in the
> support libraries that microsoft provides. It is not that MS allows
> you to write buggy code (you can do that on any platform :-) ), but
> that their libraries or their code generators are flawed.
> I remember fortran powerstation (what they came up with after
> ms fortran 5.x). What a sack of bugs. Unfortunately, it was
> the only thing capable of making dll32's out of fortran at the time.
> I also vowed never to use any "C" from microsoft again for the
> same reason. I still use Watcom C R11, which has the added advantage
> that is more "unix-like". Too bad Watcom (a superior product) flopped
> and all developers were forced to use VS C .
The short verson is that you're right! I haven't encountered even one
problem with the libraries I used under CP/M, and that is due, in part, to
the fact I seldom used them. I wrote test code for the various HDC's I
built in MS BASIC, though and delivered the formatter, drive tester software
by compiling it. That always worked fine.

My use of Windows is pretty much limited to using the applications written
for Windows, e.g. Internet Explorer, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access, etc.
Aside from that, I use various device vendors' software for configuring
logic devices and generating/simulating microcontrollers. Oddly enough,
I've run into VERY FEW problems with that. I use interchangeable drives in
trays, therefore have to reboot to switch OS' and hence, can't claim the
boxes have never been rebooted, but I've never had to reboot the one box I
use most except when a DOS application when wrong.

What this suggests is that if people (like me) have no trouble with the OS
and the applications sold for it, other folks shouldn't have trouble either.
Well, the OS was written to be used with applications, including, as you
say, certain compilers and other tools. If they don't work the way they
should, there should be legal consequences. I take great pains to test my
hardware and verify the documents I deliver with it truly represents what
happens in normal operation. If Microsoft, or any other vendor for that
matter, fails to do that, it's because too many people let them get away
with it. If there were lots of complaints, phone and written, they'd
gradually close those gaps. People are too lazy to complain, or they know
their complaints are unwarranted.

Up to now, my experience has been that if I want software that really works,
get the Microsoft version. It will work. Substandard documentation is
pretty common. Since nobody reads it, few catch the errors/omissions.
> --
> Carlos Murillo-Sanchez email: cem14_at_cornell.edu
> 428 Phillips Hall, Electrical Engineering Department
> Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 14:22:50 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:39 BST