📄 wpw_tool_symantec_95.html
字号:
<HTML>
<HR><A NAME=TOOL_SYMENTEC>
Return to <a href="#TOC">Table of Contents for this chapter</a><br>
<H4>Subject: Symantec C++</H4><PRE>
bruce@qnx.nacjack.gen.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>As an owner of Symantec C++ 6.0-6.1 + patches, I'm not impressed. The
>environment looks neat, but constantly crashes. It doesn't even have
>to be doing anything hard. For example, just the other day I tried to
>build a simple DOS program with it and, while typing in the source,
>the whole system croaks.
>
>Now they've rolled out 7.x. I found that out by accident when I went
>to their web site (which is down quite often BTW) to look for more
>patches. It's hard for me to believe its going to be better.
Hello,
Symantec C++ 6.11 is stable. If you applied the patches correctly, you
wouldn't have had much problems with that version at all. Perhaps you
were running multiple compilers or have a corrupt system.
As for Symantec C++ 7.0, this version could be called Symantec 8.0
instead because of its tremendous revision of the IDDE and its state of
the art technology. Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable
development environments on the market today.
Sincerely,
Andreas Hjelming
Symantec C/C++ Dev.
</PRE>
<HR><A NAME=TOOL_SYMENTEC_COMPLANTS>
Return to <a href="wpw_tool_index.html#TOC">Table of Contents for this chapter</a><br>
<H4>Subject: More Complaints</H4><PRE>
Andreas Hjelming <AHjelming@Symantec.com> Wrote:-
>
>>As an owner of Symantec C++ 6.0-6.1 + patches, I'm not impressed. The
>>environment looks neat, but constantly crashes.
>Symantec C++ 6.11 is stable. If you applied the patches correctly, you
>wouldn't have had much problems with that version at all. Perhaps you
>were running multiple compilers or have a corrupt system.
>Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable development environments on
>the market today.
When you ignore reported problems putting them all down to incorrectly
applied patches or corrupt system (nice meaningless phrase that one)
then you are bound to have one of the "most stable development
environments on the market today".
Symantec C++ 7.0 no know problems just ignored ones perhaps?
Cheers Terry...
---
* OLX 2.2 * Every silver lining has a cloud around it.
<HR>
In article <8AB64ED.03A60052C3.uuout@almac.co.uk>, terry.harris@almac.co.uk (TERRY HARRIS) says:
>
> Andreas Hjelming <AHjelming@Symantec.com> Wrote:-
>>
>>>As an owner of Symantec C++ 6.0-6.1 + patches, I'm not impressed. The
>>>environment looks neat, but constantly crashes.
>
>>Symantec C++ 6.11 is stable. If you applied the patches correctly, you
>>wouldn't have had much problems with that version at all. Perhaps you
>>were running multiple compilers or have a corrupt system.
>
>>Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable development environments on
>>the market today.
>
>When you ignore reported problems putting them all down to incorrectly
>applied patches or corrupt system (nice meaningless phrase that one)
>then you are bound to have one of the "most stable development
>environments on the market today".
>
>Symantec C++ 7.0 no know problems just ignored ones perhaps?
>
>Cheers Terry...
>---
> * OLX 2.2 * Every silver lining has a cloud around it.
Greetings:
Again,
Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable development environments on the market
today. If you are concerned, I recommend that you buy our package, and if you
should be unsatisfied in any way, return it for a full refund (within 60 days).
Sincerely,
Andreas Hjelming
Symantec Corp.
<HR>
Funny, the followup below didn't show up on my server...
> Andreas Hjelming <AHjelming@Symantec.com> Wrote:-
>>
>>>As an owner of Symantec C++ 6.0-6.1 + patches, I'm not impressed. The
>>>environment looks neat, but constantly crashes.
>>Symantec C++ 6.11 is stable. If you applied the patches correctly, you
>>wouldn't have had much problems with that version at all. Perhaps you
>>were running multiple compilers or have a corrupt system.
>>Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable development environments on
>>the market today.
Well, I can assure you that I am quite capable of applying patches...
and I applied all of them. Not only that, I tried your compiler on
several other machines with the exact same results (486/33 Win 3.1 8
Meg ram, 486/66 Win 3.1 8 Meg ram, P90 w/ 16 meg ram Win 3.11). I
think the auto-scramble feature of the editor windows was the worst
bug of all. If I fear a compiler will crash, I save often. It would
be nice to have faith in what is being saved is what I typed in.
I know for a fact that a large group of Windows developers in Dallas
have pitched your compiler because of these exact problems (My
brother-in-law is one of them). Is it their imagination/incompetence
as well?
This whole thing reminds me of:
Q. How many software developers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None, the lightbulb works fine in our lab.
I consider the $200 I spent on the compiler to be a waste, and should
have spent it on maintaining my Borland compiler instead (which I have
kindof been forced to do eventually).
If I were a full-time windows developer, I'ld be really pissed over it
all. Live and learn I guess.
Russell
--
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Opinions are mine, who else would want them.
WARNING: May Contain Violence or Partial Nudity - All models over 18
No animal testing was involved in the production of this message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Dickerson | StorageTek Customer Emulation Lab | Louisville, CO
dickerso@celsvr.stortek.com <-----------------------------------------
UNIX Development/Testing, X/Motif, C, C++, Database, Water-Walking....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR>
>Symantec C++ 6.11 is stable. If you applied the patches correctly, you
>wouldn't have had much problems with that version at all. Perhaps you
perhaps, but there shouldn't be a way to apply the patches incorrectly.
>were running multiple compilers or have a corrupt system.
perhaps you shouldn't blame it on his system... have you considered
that it could be your software
>As for Symantec C++ 7.0, this version could be called Symantec 8.0
^^^^ ^^^
I would agree with this because I have yet to get it to compile
my C++ program
>instead because of its tremendous revision of the IDDE and its state of
oh, is this the reason that you give it a new number, because
of the IDDE, and not the compiler? then I understand why
everyone is moaning
>the art technology.
what exactly do you mean by this?
> Symantec C++ 7.0 is one of the most stable
>development environments on the market today.
MOST STABLE !!!! no way.
In my (and many others' experience) symantec c++ 7 is:
one of the LEAST STABLE development environments in the market today.
The reason is that I use
Borland C++
Microsoft Visual C++ 2.0
Watcom C++ 10.0
and Symantec C++ 7.0
I have used your compiler the least, and it has crashed more times
in two weeks then all of the rest of the compilers that I have used
for a year put together. Personally, I wouldn't put my name on something
like this and ship it out the door, and I don't think that you should
be proud of it.
>Sincerely,
>
>Andreas Hjelming
>Symantec C/C++ Dev.
oh, it is good to see you are not biased in any way.
--
Michael Gile | Graduate Assistant
gilem@rpi.edu | Computer & Systems Engineering
"Don't Blame Me, I voted for Perot!"| Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
</PRE>
</HTML>
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -