Tom Shelton wrote:
> On Nov 18, 4:09 am, Ian Hilliard <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>> > Except in this case - he is totally correct. This had nothing at all
>> > to do with MS or C#. It had to do with a bug in their code.
>>
>> ...and probably the fact that the tools for checking their code are over
>> the top expensive under Windows. Great tools like valgrind simply make it
>> easier to write good code for Linux.
>>
>> Ian
>
> Nice attempt at shifting the topic.
No.
You just don't understand code development.
Tools - any tools, are what makes it all happen.
If you don't have them, because they are pricey, then
its an inferior develper platform. And then you then
pick the liabilities of developing on an inferior platform.
Linux has so many free tools, and the source code, you
are hard pressed to make excuses.
Add to source code the power of scripting tools and virtualisation,
and you are in a different code development universe altogether.
> The fact is that Roy (and
> [H]omer) both jumped on this in an attempt to make MS sound bad - when
> in reality, anyone who has any understanding of the topic realizes
> that just isn't the case. You can do stupid things, even in "managed"
> languages.
>
> And as for the cost of tools - maybe. Though, having had some
> experience with Ants Profiler - it is a nice tool. And, I don't think
> the $495 for a single user license of the pro-tool,
You really think thats how companies work today?!
That $495 adds up when you start adding up all the other $495's that
you need to spend on improving your developer environment.
Management do give a toss if you spend $1 over what you agreed to.
It matters a lot in bringing discipline into projects
by sticking to doing things on time and on budget.
In any case,
Linux just comes with all that - may be tools totalling
$20,000 easy!!! So why would anyone spend $495 when $20,000 is available
to you free of charge?
> is all that much
> when you consider the time and money it can save you when your trying
> to get something out the door... And in the cited case - they sure
> wish they had spent the money on it, $300 - $500 (assuming a single
> user license, which is probably all they would have needed) is peanuts
> when compared to $2Million.
>
> --
> Tom Shelton
|
|
