Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: "Craig Graham" Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.freetalk.english Subject: Re: Code W****r Date: 20 Mar 1998 08:26:22 GMT Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 38 Message-ID: <01bd53da$83ffd780$73d449c2@Angela1.intelligent-group.com> References: <3509BEF1.27D0@kprob.demon.co.uk> <01bd4f38$cc655dc0$79d449c2@Angela1.intelligent-group.com> <350C31A1.54F2@manc.u-net.com> <01bd507c$7472f6a0$74d449c2@Angela1.intelligent-group.com> <350D2CB7.52EA@manc.u-net.com> <6ek003$dud26@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <6ep7vs$l5r6@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <6epdls$l5r7@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <6es40v$l5r22@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: l115.mistral.co.uk X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 JohnT wrote in article <6es40v$l5r22@chuka.playstation.co.uk>... > Show me someone who claims they can make a complex program that is 100% bug > free and I will show you a liar! > Comparing bugs in a vastly complex system such as NT with the bugs in a > comparatively simple program is like comparing chalk and cheese. Given the > size and number of bugs I would say NT has about 2-5% buggy code and CW a > lot more (only judging from reports I've seen on the news groups, I have not > used it enough to form a percentage!! ;) NT is a very bad, slow and unreliable system (when compared to Solaris for Intel). > It would be more prudent to compare CW with, say, Microsoft's Developer > studio. In all the time I have used Developer Studio I have not seen nearly > half the amount of bugs as have been reported for CW. CW shouldn't be compared to MS Dev Studio (a mass market dev system). It should be compared to other embedded systems dev kits - most are based around the Cygnus GNU tools. Other examples include Microtec- very expensive (just the debugger for the 68K is £1500) and not as good, and Green Hills (very good, but much more expensive with a GUI that emulates X Windows (original XLib) on a PC). Taken in context CW is fantastic. > JohnT Craig.