| garylscott@sbcglobal.net 2007-11-29, 7:12 pm |
| On Nov 29, 1:44 pm, lind...@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) wrote:
> In article <474ea037$0$514$bed64...@news.gradwell.net>,
> John Appleyard <spamt...@polyhedron.com> wrote:
>
>
> I whole-heartedly agree with this. But I've yet to find a customer
> willing to pay extra for better error-detecting features like this.
> The top 3 features the typical customer desires are: faster execution,
> faster execution, and faster execution.
>
>
> If there was money in it, those compilers that produce fast
> executables would have better debugging. I even costed out what it
> would take to do the various things in Skip's tests (and the important
> things he left out.) But when we asked the big customers who'd asked
> us for these features how much it was worth to them, the answer was
> $0. So, nothing personal Skip, so far it's just been a waste of time
> and money to even think about it.
>
> -- greg
On the other hand, if a vendor produced hands down the best compiler
featuring the best aggregate performance plus the best diagnostics,
customers would beat a path to their door, abandoning existing
products in many cases. Performance will likely remain at the top of
the list, but there are many of us that would like features to improve
the language for professional system programming usage.
|