| ??? 03/20/07 01:05 Modified: 03/20/07 06:37 Read: times |
#135343 - Erik, you need to learn to read ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
first you post .. KEIL. If you were looking for bugs I reply: I am not "looking for bugs" in a tool I pay dearly for, but can guarantee you that, if I find one, there is great noise. now you state Nobody expects you to exert any effort in the direction of fixing KEIL's screwups I clearly stated that nobody expects you to find or to fix KEIL's mistakes. I did, however, imply that, as you said you hadn't found any bugs, it was probably because you weren't looking for them. Implicit in that statement is the observation that you'd not view a minor problem as a bug, because your position is that KEIL is perfection embodied in a software product. so when I ask you "do you REALLY think I WASTE my time on looking for bugs" and you have no counterargument, you switch to me spending time fixing them. First of all, reporting a bug would not be a waste of time, but as I already said, repeatedly, it's not YOUR responsibility to expend time and effort chasing THEIR bugs. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER it does no work to do the great switcheroo on me so I repeat:
If you expect me to "cease designing stuff we can sell, in order to work the compiler to find bugs" you must be, at least, 40% more stupid than a hole in the ground. What is there in that sentence about FIXING bugs? Nobody expects that, and I specifically said that. nor does anyone with any sense expect them to fix it thanks a lot for not considering me part of 'anyone' (what am I then?) I would raise bloody hell if I found a bug affecting me and it did not get fixed ASAP I submit that if you found a bug requiring any serious effort to fix, it would be decades ... However, it's not right to imply that there aren't any bugs just because you haven't seen them yourself. did you not, a while ago argue with absolutisms stating that "there is no problem using an 8255 for this and that purpose" ? which you, yourself had never done. You really like tossing out those "red herrings," don't you? Would my making the statement that I don't eat insects make it wrong to do so? I certainly don't believe so. I've never said I've never used an 8255, as that would be untrue. There are lots of things for which I wouldn't use one unless some circumstance, e.g, the presence of an otherwise unused one on the system I was using influenced me to do so. I've stated why, too, namely that they don't have enough output strength. However, neither do most 805x's. You're a shill because, whenever anyone suggests that KEIL is too costly, you immediately jump them for being too cheap. You don't say, "It might actually be worth that much..." or the like, but you immediately accuse them of being cheap. I do consider it worth that much no 'might' about it You're a shill because you quickly jump anyone who advocates for another compiler, with a comment like, "well, if you were using KEIL, you'd have no problems." so, now stating the truth is being 'shill' No, actually not. If only you'd limit yourself to stating the truth. The fact that you've not observed something yourself doesn't make it false. The fact that you've observed something a time or two doesn't make it fact though the fact you've observed it is a fact. The difference between an observation and an absolute fact is contained in lots of study and accumulated data which, in total, amounts to supportive evidence. It's still a long way from that to a fact. You're a shill because you say, "You should use KEIL ..." when you probably should limit your comment to, "I use and like KEIL's product, and here's why ..." so when I say what I mean "You should use KEIL", I should not say so, but LIE? No, but you could remain silent. You could also state that it's your opinion that whoever you're addressing should use KEIL. Stating it as an absolute is a lie. After all, he doesn't have to do such anything. If you always echo their party-line, then you're a shill. Check the definition. in my previous post I gave you 3 examples of not "echoing their party-line" how many 'examples' does it take to get it through your thick skull that I do not "echo their party-line". ... and what were those 3 examples? I don't use it because (a) I don't like using HLL's for MCU's, and (b) because of the experience I've had with them. It's a limited experience, but I'm not interested in repeating it. a) so because "you don't like using HLL's for MCU's" ANY tool is too expensive for those that do. Another of the "if you do not do as Richard, you are wrong". b) Give me a compiler manufacturer (or some other company) where 1st and 2nd support line knows much more than reading the manual. That's not what I wrote, nor is it anything I'd be likely to say. I didn't say it was too expensive for YOU, nor did I say anyting about ANY, tool. I'm not the one who's always telling folks they're wrong, or stupid, or such. That's your role, Erik. I simply object to your frequent advocacy in favor of a $2.5K product for some hobbyist who might well be in a country where that amount exceeds the average annual income. One other thing ... I don't expect anything in KEIL's C-51 compiler to be improved now that ARM, which would benefit from the nonexistence of the PIC, 68HC-whatever, or 805x and derivatives, owns it. well, the last release had additions, so whatever the eternal pessimist thinks, nothing such has happened.
Erik When was that last release? Do you think that was generated after the acquisition by ARM? What were the additions? Were they of use? Did they fix the big problems, e.g. inaccurate simulations? Lack of timing detail? Lack of support for any previously unsupported 805x variant? We'll see ... RE |
