gaborit@geocub.greco-prog.fr (Laurent Gaborit) (03/15/90)
"Hello world\n" I am going to purchase a C compiler that should allow me to do heavy programming and large programs (~ 3000 - 10000 lines) Can you share your experience and give me drawbacks and advantages of the well-known : Borland Turbo C, Microsoft C5.1 or Quick C, Zortech C++, and other beasts... Thanks Laurent
flo@floenz1.UUCP (Florian Reichl) (03/16/90)
Turbo is used by a lot of kids and freaks. MSC is used by a lot of conservative professionals who need a reliable workhorse. JPI TopSpeed C is an exciting new product, faster than the others in this list, producing very tight code (up to 40% less than MSC) Zortech seem to be the C++ choice at the moment. But all this is almost religious and harder than choosing a car. I am by the way driving Volkswagen and running MSC and TSC. Looking forward for flames with best greetings from Bavaria -- Florian
ccstb@bath.ac.uk (T Barry) (03/16/90)
Try TopSpeed C.
brothers@jetsun.WEITEK.COM (bill brothers) (03/17/90)
In article <1722@geocub.greco-prog.fr> gaborit@geocub.greco-prog.fr (Laurent Gaborit) writes: > >I am going to purchase a C compiler that should allow me to do >heavy programming and large programs (~ 3000 - 10000 lines) >Can you share your experience and give me drawbacks and advantages of >the well-known : Borland Turbo C, Microsoft C5.1 or Quick C, Zortech C++, >and other beasts... I would seriously check out a professional grade programming environment such as Metaware... Also keep in mind that most folks will be migrating to ANSI pseudo-standards. I use TurboC for most of my quicky "generate a quick pgm" stuff, but use Metaware or Microway for anything that is going to a customer.
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (03/20/90)
I have Turbo C and MSC Both. In trying to determine which one builds the tighter code, I compiled MicroEMACS 3.10 (Beta) under MSC. I used the maximum optimizations on both. MSC Failed with an internal compiler error. Without optimizations, it compiled and linked, but, alas, Emacs would crash. The Turbo C compiled version works fine. I have been using it as my editor at work for over a year. The Turbo C version was also 10K smaller. I don't know if MicroEMACS is really a good benchmark, but it's big and is supported by a variety of compilers on various platforms. BTW - I used TC 2.0 and MSC 5.1 Steve
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (03/20/90)
In article <1990Mar19.175316.16898@Octopus.COM> stever@octopus.UUCP (Steve Resnick ) writes: >I have Turbo C and MSC Both. In trying to determine which one builds the >tighter code, I compiled MicroEMACS 3.10 (Beta) under MSC. I used the maximum >optimizations on both. MSC Failed with an internal compiler error. Without ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >optimizations, it compiled and linked, but, alas, Emacs would crash. The ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Turbo C compiled version works fine. I have been using it as my editor at work >for over a year. The Turbo C version was also 10K smaller. I don't know if >MicroEMACS is really a good benchmark, but it's big and is supported by >a variety of compilers on various platforms. > >BTW - I used TC 2.0 and MSC 5.1 > I can't imagine what you did, I compiled 3.10 with MSC 5.1, no internal errors, it created an 88102 byte executable that doesn't crash at all. It even uses my mouse. kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley spelling and grammar flames > /dev/null
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (03/20/90)
In article <1264@doitcr.doit.sub.org> flo@floenz1.doit.sub.org (Florian Reichl) writes:
<JPI TopSpeed C is an exciting new product, faster than the others
< in this list, producing very tight code (up to 40% less than MSC)
In what contrived example is this true? Extravagent claims like 40% less
need to be substantiated.jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) (03/20/90)
In article <1990Mar19.175316.16898@Octopus.COM> stever@octopus.UUCP (Steve Resnick ) writes: >I have Turbo C and MSC Both. In trying to determine which one builds the >tighter code, I compiled MicroEMACS 3.10 (Beta) under MSC. I used the maximum >optimizations on both. MSC Failed with an internal compiler error. Without >optimizations, it compiled and linked, but, alas, Emacs would crash. The >Turbo C compiled version works fine. I have been using it as my editor at work >for over a year. The Turbo C version was also 10K smaller. I don't know if >MicroEMACS is really a good benchmark, but it's big and is supported by >a variety of compilers on various platforms. I've had this problem with a different version of pc emacs (the original gosling emacs). MSC 5.1 barfed and turbo C worked after some work (it was originally written for lattice C and MSC 4.0). Try Zortech C. It makes better code than turbo C but does less dangerous optimizations than MSC does. The code it makes is very clean - it does just what you'd expect an optimizing compiler to do. The only wierdness is the way it handles postincrement (and this weirdness is not incorrect.. it's just weird and slightly slower). Now only if it had pseudoregisters... Also the Zortech floating point library is better than both turbo C and MSC because it's reentrant. Plus tiny model isn't as braindamaged- with zortech tiny model and small are equivelent except that tiny model is a .COM file. I find it very humerous that MSC 6.0 now supports tiny model. I thought Mircosoft had decided to drop support on .COM files... My compiler of choice is still turbo C though. My 8Mhz PC runs just as fast as MSC (5.1) on a 20Mhz 386. I only use MSC or Zortech for the final compile (if I hadn't used any of turbo C's incompatible features). Plus I usually don't care very much about the compilers optimizations anyway since I write critical sections in assembly. -- "Come on Duke, lets do those crimes" - Debbie "Yeah... Yeah, lets go get sushi... and not pay" - Duke
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (03/21/90)
In article <3130@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> kaleb@mars.UUCP (Kaleb Keithley) writes: > >I can't imagine what you did, I compiled 3.10 with MSC 5.1, no internal errors, >it created an 88102 byte executable that doesn't crash at all. It even uses my Well, I used the MSC 5.1 which came with my OS/2 SDK. This is allegedly supposed to generate DOS code. The args to cl were: -c -Ox -AL. The internal error is encountered when compiling buffer.c with optimzations. The error that comes up is fatal error 1001: Internal compiler error in file code.c 1.42 (or something close, I don't have my compiler here...). Granted, my opinion of MSC is not very high, I would still be interested in how you got Emacs to compile alright... Steve
jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) (03/21/90)
In article <9873@wpi.wpi.edu> jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) writes: >The only wierdness is the >way it handles postincrement (and this weirdness is not incorrect.. it's just >weird and slightly slower). Oops... my apologies to zortech. I was quite mistaken about what other compilers do and my understanding of C. In particular, this program: main() { int a=0; int *b= &a; printf("%d\n", (*b) + (a++) ); } Produces the result '1' on all compilers I've tried it on except GNU C, where it produces the result '0'. Most compilers assume 'a++' means "move a to tmp, increment a, use tmp for rest of expression" I (and I guess RMS too) thought it meant "use a for expression. When expresion is finished, increment a" I think this definition is slightly faster since with it one less register is free to use for other things in an expression. But K&R doesn't say which is to be used so I guess they're both right. -- "Come on Duke, lets do those crimes" - Debbie "Yeah... Yeah, lets go get sushi... and not pay" - Duke
koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) (03/22/90)
If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger.
pipkins@qmsseq.imagen.com (Jeff Pipkins) (03/22/90)
I'd like to hear from someone who has used the WATCOM C compiler! It's gotten rave reviews, and they have a good reputation for super- optimizing compilers in the mainframe world. Their compiler comes with EVERYTHING, including an integrated environment for those of you who like that sort of thing, complete with profiler and debugger. News rags say that they just signed an agreement with Boreland to get their debugger. MY TWO BITS' WORTH: I'm tired of hearing religious flames about Turdo C and MSC. More than that, I'm tired of the attitudes of the companies that produce these compilers. I would love to see someone take their business away. The rest of this article explains why I feel that way. MICROSOFT: My beef with Microsoft is that they use proprietary knowledge to compete unfairly. At one time they had undocumented DOS calls in their C startup code. Since they wrote the DOS, they knew the calls. When they announced OS/2 (that they wrote), guess who had the first compiler available for it? I think a bit a trust-busting is in order here. That sentiment is probably the biggest reason for the large number of Borland fans out there. I used to be one for that reason. No more. BORLAND: My beef with Borland is two-fold. First, their products have a cheap, unprofessional, sometimes even buggy feel and finish. The second is that their attitude toward their customers outrages me. I switched from MSC to Turdo C in the middle of a commercial project when it first came out. It proved to be a big mistake to trust a commercial project to an unprofessional tool, with no sympathy or support from its makers. I sent Borland a piece of code which demonstrated a disasterous bug in their compiler. When you compile it with certain options, it would wipe out the root directory of the hard disk! You didn't have to RUN the program, JUST COMPILE IT with their compiler. They CONFIRMED this error. They did not even so much as appologize. They just said, "We don't intend to do anything about it. Wait for the next version." The letter I sent to them was sent via a CompuServ posting, which disapeared very quickly. Someone else on that forum asked for a bug list. Someone from Borland replied that they DID NOT KEEP A BUGLIST! (They were "fixing bugs so fast" that they "couldn't even keep up" with it...) I also think it is pretty raunchy of them to keep their compiler and especially their libraries incompatible with Microsoft's _on_purpose_. They asked Allen Hollub what it would take to get him to use their compiler instead of Microsoft's. He said, make it compile my existing programs without modification. They left with a frown. This incompatibility is a MARKETING issue, not an engineering issue. That's what burns me up about it. CONCLUSION: I can't stand any company that tries to control and manipulate their customers. I want them to win my business through excellence and a good price/performance ratio. I am enraged at companies that try to win by business by force. Microsoft and Borland have both demonstrated this tactic. I think they would be better received if they would peddle their compilers in the Soviet Union. SO I ADMIT THAT I HAVE PREJUDICES against certain products because of the attitudes of the companies that make them. Let's turn this potential flame war into something constructive. If you have a C compiler religion, it doesn't help to state it unless you first look inside yourself and tell us WHY you feel that way. It is constructive to find out how a once objective opinion can be soured with specific bad experiences. It is not constructive to chime in with a boolean opinion. Jeff Pipkins pipkins@imagen.com My employer does not necessarily share my personal views.
jrh@mustang.dell.com (James R. Howard) (03/22/90)
In article <2940@alpha.cam.nist.gov>, koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes: > If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very > inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger. I bought a copy of it quite a while back. It seemed fairly good, especially for the price, which at the time was $25. A couple problems that I noticed at the time were: Does not produce .OBJ files compatible with MS language compilers, although I think they fixed this. Compiler was slow, and I think it only supported certain memory models. I can't remember clearly on this, it has been some time since I used it, and it has probably been upgraded with new versions several times since then. I believe that .EXE program execution was very fast, the optimizer was quite good, and blew away both MSC and TC on some standard benchmarks. It was also one of the first to have VGA support in the libraries I believe. I got away from it and went to MSC eventually. -------------------------------------------------------------- James Howard ..uunet!dell!mustang!jrh or jrh@mustang.dell.com The opinions stated are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, or anyone else. --------------------------------------------------------------
jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen) (03/22/90)
In article <126@qmsseq.imagen.com> pipkins@qmsseq.UUCP (Jeff Pipkins) writes: >I'd like to hear from someone who has used the WATCOM C compiler! So would I. Although... I read a review and the conclusion was high C was better for 386. >MY TWO BITS' WORTH: I primarily use turbo C and occasionally use zortech C. I _of_course_ agree with what you say about microsoft... :) but with turbo C I have to add something. FIrst of all, yes what you say about Borland is probably true. Luckily I havn't yet had to deal with their customer support (I'm not even registered). However, Turbo C really does compile 3 times faster than most others. For that technical reason alone I prefer it. My guess is that the primary reason why it's faster is the I/O... I think it would probably be very easy for other compiler writers to make their compilers fast just by using 64K buffers. Second, it includes features which allow me to avoid Intel/Microsoft assembly language. The 8088 could have a nice assembler... it's really not that bad of a processor for writing assembly but MASM, TASM and even A86 are so completely braindamaged that anything to help me avoid using them is quite welcome. Why must I use assembly in my C programs? Because I have yet to see a decent C library (like how about a farread call?) and MSDOS is stupid. -- "Come on Duke, lets do those crimes" - Debbie "Yeah... Yeah, lets go get sushi... and not pay" - Duke
gbastin@x102c.harris-atd.com (Gary Bastin 60293) (03/22/90)
In article <2940@alpha.cam.nist.gov> koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes: > >If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very >inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger. I find it to be very good. The debugger is extremely easy to use; I occasionally use it to de-bug C programs being written on a Unix mainframe in place of the resident debuggers. As for Power C compiler, it is a very flexible compiler, containing many if not all of the functions in Turbo C and Microsoft C. Power C also contains many System V functions, enabling porting many mainframe programs to a PC easily, depending upon hardware limitations, of course. For $19.95 for the compiler, and $19.95 for the C-trace debugger, plus about $5 bucks shipping, it is quite a bargain. (BTW, I have no connection with Mix Software except as a satisfied customer!) Gary Bastin /-/-/ arpa: gbastin@x102c.ess.harris.com Mail Stop 102-4853 | phone: (407) 729-3304 Harris Corporation GASD | packet: WB4YAF @ N4JLR.FL.USA.NA P.O.B. 94000, Melbourne FL 32902 Speaking from, but not for, Harris!
fordke@ingr.com (Keith Ford x8614) (03/23/90)
in article <2940@alpha.cam.nist.gov>, koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) says: > If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very > inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger. IMHO, it is very good. If I'm not mistaken, the library is a super-set of the Turbo C library. For $10 you can get the library source like I did and find out how printf, malloc, etc. work. It has routines for DOS, I/O, graphics, TSR's, and more. You could at one time get the "C Window's Toolkit" from Magna Charta software for $30 (regular > $100). It does windows and fast screen I/O. In summary: It works for me! :) -kef/MM- -- -- fordke@ingr.com \ Micro Magic BBS [205-830-2362] offers: -- ...!uunet!ingr!fordke \ choice DOS utils (IMHO), Trackstar info, -- 205-730-8614 Keith Ford \ IBM educational software, Apple2 areas. -- "...and the Trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw." -Rush
tima@polari.UUCP (tim anderson) (03/24/90)
I have heard that (for 32 bit '386 compilers) Watcom is a bit better than Metaware's. We picked Metaware's mainly because Autodesk recommended them. I have since felt that we made a bad choice - NOT because the product was no good, but because Metaware has started shipping religious literature with their C compiler. While I may or may not have qualms with their religion, I find this to be incredibly unprofessional, leading me to question the company as a whole...
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (03/24/90)
In <3207@uudell.dell.com>, jrh@mustang.dell.com (James R. Howard) writes: > In article <2940@alpha.cam.nist.gov>, koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. > Koontz X5180) writes: > > If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very > > inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger. > > I bought a copy of it quite a while back. It seemed fairly good, > especially for > the price, which at the time was $25. A couple problems that I noticed at the > time were: I paid $50 for compiler, debugger and library source. > Compiler was slow, and I think it only supported certain memory > models. I have version 1.3.0 (No idea what current version is). It only supports the medium memory model. I have no feel for the speed of the compiler, I don't have MSC or Turbo or anything else to compare it to. > I believe that .EXE program execution was very fast, the optimizer was quite > good, and blew away both MSC and TC on some standard benchmarks. It was also > one of the first to have VGA support in the libraries I believe. It also has floating point support second only to WatCom (the best) and a small fraction of the cost. On the PC mags a while back rated compilers and MIX did very well. It doesn't have an integrated environment, at least not the version they had out when I bought it, but I (personally) hate such things anyway. I haven't been using it much since I'm not doing much PC programming anymore. Its a *great* value. Especially since you can get library source. I'm not affliated with MIX except as a very happy customer. -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
consp21@bingsuni.cc.binghamton.edu (Ken Hoover) (03/25/90)
In article <705.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) writes: [ in reference to MIX Power C ] > I have version 1.3.0 (No idea what current version is). It only supports > the medium memory model. I have no feel for the speed of the compiler, > I don't have MSC or Turbo or anything else to compare it to. > [...] It doesn't have an integrated > environment, at least not the version they had out when I bought it, but > I (personally) hate such things anyway. I haven't been using it much > since I'm not doing much PC programming anymore. Its a *great* value. > Especially since you can get library source. I talked with several people in the Computer Center here while looking for a good C compiler, and they all recommended Power C to me on the basis of its documentation alone (I'm still learning C). To them, the fact that you get a pretty decent C compiler was secondary, because for $19.95 the manual by itself was worth the money. I took the plunge and bought the whole package -- compiler, debugger, and lib source -- for $50. For Turbo C professional, $150 + $150 (?) for lib source. Four 360k disks and two well-written manuals. The compiler is pretty good, although this version (1.3.0) only supports medium memory models; and is plenty fast for me (speed is not really important to me; but the stuff included with the compiler showed it as being faster than Turbo C and Quick C while generating smaller .EXE files). The debugger (v1.2.0) is also nice, but I quickly discovered a way to make it go kablooie (crash messily) on something that it ought to prevent me from doing. Also included with the library source was an assembler, PCA.EXE, which the README files say little about, other than it's for compiling the .ASM with the library source code. I haven't tried to use it, but perhaps it will be developed further in the future? I also think that integrated environments are for the birds. If I need a debugger, I'll use a separate one (like the one in power C) rather than have it get in my way while I'm just generating code. Besides, I haven't found an integrated environment editor that would make me give up standalone ones I prefer to use. For me, Power C is perfect. If I find that it ever can't do what I need it to do, I may switch; but if they keep me notified of upgrades and keep building on their excellent start, I'll stick with them and keep chuckling at those people who shelled out a lot more to get the same results. > > I'm not affliated with MIX except as a very happy customer. > > -Doug Me too. - Ken PS: Is there any way to get in contact with MIX over the net via email or other means? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Hoover [ consp21@bingsuns.pod.binghamton.edu | consp21@bingvaxa.BITNET ] Resident computer jock, SUNY-Binghamton Bio dept. Senior undergraduate consultant, SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dquah@athena.mit.edu (Danny Quah) (03/25/90)
In article <1424@polari.UUCP> tima@polari (tim anderson) writes: >I have heard that (for 32 bit '386 compilers) Watcom is a bit better than >Metaware's. We picked Metaware's mainly because Autodesk recommended them. I Has anyone heard/read anything about or (better) actually used NDP's 386 C compiler? How is it compared to that from Watcom and Metaware? Thus far I've only seen NDP's ads in DDJ and such. They claim Weitek support. Reviews anywhere? I'm in the market for such a compiler and should be plunking down money soon. -- --Danny (dquah@athena.mit.edu, dquah@dolphin.mit.edu) Dept. of Economics MIT, E52-274b, Cambridge MA 02139 Voice: (617) 253-0914 Fax: (617) 253-1330 #
nol2321@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Jim Dunn) (03/27/90)
In article <2940@alpha.cam.nist.gov> koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes: > >If I may humbly enquire, is the MIX's Power C any good? It seems to be very >inexpensive, at $40.00 for compiler and debugger. ******************************************************************************* SURE!!! The Power C will probably give you the biggest bang for the buck! You don't need to spend the bucks for MsC 5.1, since QuickC 2.0 will give you just as much speed and power and compactness (almost!). And Turbo C, well, they'll have a brand new version 3.0 before long and the market will sway again... NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S BEST!!! Just pick something and stick with it, as long as there's competition (i.e. microsoft, borland, mix, zortech...) there will be another BETTER version... (I use MsC 5.1, Quick C 2.01, Turbo C 2.0. Quick C is my most commonly used.) :)
wilber@sal-sun48.usc.edu (John Wilber) (03/28/90)
In article <1424@polari.UUCP> tima@polari (tim anderson) writes: >have since felt that we made a bad choice - NOT because the product was >no good, but because Metaware has started shipping religious literature >with their C compiler. While I may or may not have qualms with their >religion, I find this to be incredibly unprofessional, leading me to question >the company as a whole... What do you mean, religious literature? Do you mean religious, as if to espouse a certain language, operating system, or hardware (like FORTH, Unix, or Macintosh)? Or do you mean RELIGIOUS, as if to push a certain faith, like Judaism, Hare Krisha, or Seventh Day Adventism? I think you're talking about RELIGIOUS here, but I find that difficult to believe. After all, WordPerfect Corporation is owned and operated by Mormons, but they don't try to change their customers' beliefs in any way. If you are talking about RELIGIOUS, I would find the practice of putting literature in their products offensive (and unprofessional, like you) enough to return it and buy from someone else. /***********************************************************************\ * John J. Wilber * "Im Himmel gibts kein Bier zum trinken wir * * wilber@nunki.usc.edu * es hier" -German Proverb * * Student, partier, beer * "In heaven there's no beer, so we might as * * drinker, fun-loving guy. * well drink it here" -Translation * ************************************************************************* * "I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer" -The Doors * \***********************************************************************/
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/29/90)
In article <8847@chaph.usc.edu>, wilber@sal-sun48.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: > In article <1424@polari.UUCP> tima@polari (tim anderson) writes: # # #have since felt that we made a bad choice - NOT because the product was # #no good, but because Metaware has started shipping religious literature # #with their C compiler. While I may or may not have qualms with their # #religion, I find this to be incredibly unprofessional, leading me to question # #the company as a whole... # # What do you mean, religious literature? Do you mean religious, as if to # espouse a certain language, operating system, or hardware (like FORTH, # Unix, or Macintosh)? Or do you mean RELIGIOUS, as if to push a certain # faith, like Judaism, Hare Krisha, or Seventh Day Adventism? # # I think you're talking about RELIGIOUS here, but I find that difficult # to believe. After all, WordPerfect Corporation is owned and operated by # Mormons, but they don't try to change their customers' beliefs in any # way. # # If you are talking about RELIGIOUS, I would find the practice of putting # literature in their products offensive (and unprofessional, like you) # enough to return it and buy from someone else. # # * John J. Wilber * "Im Himmel gibts kein Bier zum trinken wir * Metaware is, according to their advertising for open positions, a "Christ-centered" company. (Translation: evangelical Christians run the company, and as near I can tell, nearly all the employees are also. They frequently hold prayer meetings during the day at work, and nearly everyone goes). If you don't like the extraneous literature they ship with their product, throw it away. Their C compiler produces extremely optimized code, from my workings with it. In my dealings with Metaware while working for a customer of theirs, I never had the issue of religion raised, or even suggested. *I* wouldn't do things the way Metaware does -- but that's hardly a reason to not buy a product from them. (Tell me, if you suggested not buying software from a company that was vigorously, unambiguously Jewish, would the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation League be called in to harrass you?) -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
wilber@sal-sun2.usc.edu (John Wilber) (03/30/90)
In article <3317@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >*I* wouldn't do things the way Metaware does -- but that's hardly a >reason to not buy a product from them. (Tell me, if you suggested >not buying software from a company that was vigorously, unambiguously >Jewish, would the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation League be called in to >harrass you?) Good point. My only beef with buying from a religious company occurs when they act in an unprofessional manner, such as previously described. If it was Jewish literature that they were including in their product, instead of Christian, I'd still have a problem with buying it, though. I have no reservations about buying from a company that espouses a certain religion, as long as they don't push it on me. BTW, I think WordPerfect is great software- their company is (almost) all Mormons. If MW's compiler is as good as you describe, maybe someday I will buy it and throw the included literature away. >Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer >Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. Or George Bush, with the new ban on "non-sporting" firearms proposed. /***********************************************************************\ * John J. Wilber * "My mind is a planet for you to roam" * * wilber@nunki.usc.edu * -INXS * * Student, partier, anarchist, * "Put away that gun- this party's * * and fun-loving guy. * simple" -The Talking Heads * \***********************************************************************/