| ??? 10/27/11 01:17 Modified: 10/27/11 01:18 Read: times |
#184384 - That's not what I'm asking them to do Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
Richard Erlacher said:
it's clear that these vendors don't really want someone to make a rigorous comparison and buy on the basis of what best suits a particular application. They simply want us to believe that their product is the best thing since sliced bread, and take them at their word. Put yourself in their shoes: If a customer came to you and said, "will you do this job for free - then, if we like you, we'll put more business your way" - what would be your response? I did, once, have a client (he wasn't one, yet) come to me with a task on which he didn't want to risk more lost time, as his own people had consumed over half a year working on it to no avail. He was not unwilling to pay my rate, but he didn't want to risk more schedule slip. He gave me the spec's that had been developed for the task and a date certain on which I was to deliver the working prototype and pass an agreed-upon set of tests. I didn't provide any schematics and removed the component labels from the then-popular memories and family logic. Not only did I deliver him the functional prototype within a week, but it met all the requirements as proven through testing. He was one of my best clients and a good friend for a couple of decades, until he passed on. May he rest in peace. I myself have recently had several enquiries along those very lines: they don't actually ask me to work for free, but expect a "special rate" - on the basis that "further work will follow".
I rather suspect that there will either be no "further work", or that they will expect it to be done at a similarly discounted rate... :-( I've had a few offers that I've turned down because I didn't trust the would-be customer, hence, he never became one. Normally one can, as you apparently did, smell the bad ones. I'm not saying the compiler vendors should give you a full product at no cost. I'm saying that they should provide a demonstration or evaluation package that allows you to demonstrate (to your own customers if necessary) and/or evaluate the product the product in the context of comparison with their competition. If they can't do that, you should be suspicious of their motives. Some such eval packages allow you to see their GUI, invoke their functions, and, of course, listen to their pitch, but it is, in some cases, like going to the car dealer and listening to the motor running, but never see whether it can tow the trailer. It's the work product that matters, IMHO, and not the fancy features. If it won't do even one little thing, then it's almost certain that is the little thing on which successful completion of a project will someday hinge. I just believe that any vendor of a costly product ought to tell the truth about his product, and provide the means to make an honest comparison with his competitors. Now, few software vendors are going to tell the truth, since much of it isn't known to them for a long time after they've fielded it, but at least they should provide the means to verify their claims, simply as a confidence-building measure. Otherwise, they're just like the car sales people. Keep in mind that this matter arose out of an honest desire on the part of the O/P to evaluate a compiler's suitability for a specific task. RE |
