holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (02/18/89)
In article <1195@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > >>In article <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes: > > [Various complaints about the THINK C editor...] > >The decision to use a given piece of software is purely your choice. If you >find you've made a bad decision, it is your prerogative to go out and find >a tool which best suits your needs. > > --Rich It seems that you're missing the point of this forum - the open exchange of information and ideas. This type of blind defensiveness for Symantec products is neither productive for the exchange of ideas on this network nor as a public relations perspective for Symantec. I don't see a disclaimer, but, I doubt this is Symantec's official policy for responding to product criticisms. Admittedly, some of the criticisms are rather *blunt* but, as a Symantec representative, a lot could be gained by a more positive attitude in answering these criticisms. For example, you could have discussed the following: - the economical reasons for not developing a more powerful editor - market studies that show most users are satisfied with the editor - plans to enhance the editor ... The LSC environment is great, but, it is not perfect. The editor is one of its shortcomings. Even the debugger could stand a bit of improvement: - the ability to save window references and locations - the ability to save breakpoints - the ability to conditionally break on variable values - the ability to break on variable changes ... These criticisms/suggestions don't mean that I want to change environments. I love LSC, but, I'd be happier it were improved. Take these discussions to the appropriate people at Symantec and give us feedback and we'll all benefit. >Rich Siegel >Staff Software Developer >THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. >Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu >UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel >Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (02/19/89)
In article <70205@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: > >It seems that you're missing the point of this forum - the open >exchange of information and ideas. This type of blind defensiveness I don't recall having engaged in a defense of anything; I did state one of my personal beliefs, which may not have been a good idea; nevertheless I stand by what I say. There is no disclaimer attached because the company has asked me not to do so. I don't necessarily agree with that positioning, because it leaves me open to inserting foot in mouth (subject to interpretation), as I seem to have done. On to the topic at hand: Now that we've all agreed that the LightspeedC editor is a shortcoming, wouldn't it me MUCH MORE CONSTRUCTIVE to say *WHY* it's a shortcoming, instead of blindly putting it down? I am always open to suggestion and recommendation, but much less so when it's couched in abusive language. I will always pass suggestion and recommendation on to the "appropriate people" (I'm one of them), if it's reasonable. I don't consider any form of abuse reasonable. --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (02/20/89)
In article <1212@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >In article <70205@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >> > On to the topic at hand: Now that we've all agreed that the >LightspeedC editor is a shortcoming, wouldn't it me MUCH MORE CONSTRUCTIVE >to say *WHY* it's a shortcoming, instead of blindly putting it down? I am Absolutely. I think the original complaint blasted the editor without any basis. I have no respect for these type of postings. But others, including myself, followed up with specific constructive criticisms such as macro capabilities and more mobility (without the mouse). This may have been the result of crosstalk, but, your suggestion for those dissatisfied customers to move on to another development system appeared to be directed to all of us - there were no quotes or references in your posting and it was posted to everyone, not mailed. >always open to suggestion and recommendation, but much less so when it's >couched in abusive language. I will always pass suggestion and recommendation >on to the "appropriate people" (I'm one of them), if it's reasonable. I don't >consider any form of abuse reasonable. > > --Rich We certainly appreciate the times that you help us out with problems and give us "inside" information. I sympathize with you for some of the abuse some people dish out, but, I think those cases would best be handled with more directed responses. As a representative of Symantec, you should be careful not to alienate the rest of us. >Rich Siegel >Staff Software Developer >THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. >Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu >UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel >Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
anson@spray.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (02/20/89)
This thread has suggested several criticisms (opportunities for improvement)
of Lightspeed C. There have also been several defenses, based on cost of the
proposed features. I'd like to make an observation and a suggestion.
If every useful suggestion for improvement were converted to an enhancement
of LSC, the following would most likely happen:
-- The package would become prohibitively expensive for many current users.
-- Many people would not like all the extensions.
-- Many people would still want more.
If none of the suggestions are taken, many users will be forced to move to
other development environments. I may be among them. Not because I don't love
LSC, but because of a few features which are becoming critical to me.
It thus seems that the best solution would be to make improvements in a
modular way, and unbundle them. Give people a choice of editors. Provide
extra support for specialized types of development. Many of us would be glad
to pay for these extras, even though not every user should be burdened with
the cost.
... But THINK probably doesn't have the resources to do all of the things
everyone might want. Why should they have to?
Why not add one basic feature: Open the architecture in a manner similar to
HyperCard. That is, provide hooks for third-party enhancements. MPW does this,
sort of. But I think the folks at THINK could do a better job. What we need
is a way to integrate new tools into the basic LSC environment.
With this approach, everyone can eventually have the features they want/need,
and THINK can concentrate on what they do best: creating a friendly user
environment and fast compilation. The rest of us can add the goodies that will
make LSC even more attractive than it is now.
For the record, I could care less about macro editors. What I'd like is:
-- extension of the project concept to sets of related CODE resources
-- an option to automatically check files for a Make, to be used when
multiple projects share files (This should also apply to automatic
makes, e.g., when I say Run.)
-- version control for sets of source files
-- C++ with MacApp compatibility
-- optional optimized code generation
I realize that not everyone would want or need all of these features. But I do.
I would personally be willing to pay extra for each of these, if necessary.
[Usual disclaimers apply.]
--
=====================================================================
Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051
(603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM