Re: lcc-win32
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:05:04 +0100, jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr wrote:
>
>Dear friends:
>
>You write about my system (in your web pages):
>>>
>Translator and run-time library for Windows using LccWin C
>LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit Windows. (5 Mb). Severe bugs have
>been introduced in Lcc recently that render it almost useless for our
>purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly recommend that you=20
>download Borland instead.
Thank you jacob, very kindly, for this honest advice.
> Lcc's -O optimization option is particularly
>buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run emake.bat=20
>again, but without the -O options. (But you really should consider using=
=20
>Borland or Watcom instead!).
><<
>
>I would like to point out that:
>1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not=20
>remember.
If that is so, we owe you a sincere apology. Rob, everyone, please
review your web pages, and at the very least report any problems found
(include the URL), and put [reported <date>] next to any even slightly
disparaging remark. As is only fair.
>2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using=20
>it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
>
>3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation from my part. I try to=
=20
>improve my system as much as I can without writing any bugs, but as you=20
>can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes.
One of the reasons I like Euphoria is that you can at least talk to
the author. I accept that I may well not get the answer I wanted, but
at least I get a straight no, or a much more accurate timescale; which
cannot be said for Borland, Microsoft, etc..
>The best thing is=20
>to use tools that are not in this stage of development like Borland=20
>tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an=20
>individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.
If we had, as we obviously should have, granted you the simple
courtesy of reporting problems that should not necessarily be so.
(Euphoria is similarly a one-man-band effort, albeit older).
>
>For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from=20
>the list of supported C compilers.
>Why make me negative publicity? I do=20
>what I can guys, probably as hard as you do.
>
Rob, any chance of verifying this guy is who he claims, and if so
granting a free copy of the sources for testing? You never know, give
him enough rope, and he just might even beat watcom!
At the very least, you must have some ropey old pre-alpha version you
couldn't possibly be scared of anyone pirating...
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
