> >3) If I don't have to write functions for CCS to match the functions in
> >Hi-Tech
> >'C', why is Hi-Tech still in business at the outrages prices they have?
>
> No answer here... :)  When I evaluated CCS amd HiTech a few years back, I
> got scared by the amount of bug fixes the CCS author published each week.
> That was a constant flow, which also means that there were, with a high
> probability, still many many weeks of bugs to fix in the compiler I was
> using at any time. Which in a way does not shed a good light on the
quality
> of the compiler design.
>

I used to get  frustrated at the constant stream of CCS bug fixes, which
have never stopped from day one.  OTOH, they can fix a problem really fast
if it is MY problem, then that is a good thing, making me not so frustrated.
CCS does not buy into the normal rhythm of major revision, alpha test, beta
test, release.  They bang out code and ship it.   They bust a lot of other
paradigms as well, in their business model.   They charge by the year for
updates and support, but have a low entry-fee.  All us developers should
take a lesson from thier business model, it makes a lot of long term sense
for the developer and eats into the market share of the competition.   I can
say that their code becomes more stable over time, and less stable after a
major release.  Don't get the latest big revision 3.000, wait for version
3.050 which will come out in 50 days or less.

Hitech's business and software release paradigm is more normal.  That's why
they are still in business.

--Lawrence

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body