From: cparker@centerline.com (Charles Parker)
Subject: Re: FLAME: BORLAND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Reply-To: cparker@centerline.com
Organization: CenterLine Software
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:24:12 GMT

In article Enq@apollo.hp.com, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Take a look at Michael Cusamano's research at MIT on US software 
>  productivity.  He claims the Japanese are about to do to the soft-
>  ware industry what they've already done in auto's, consumer electronics, 
>  etc.  He has researched some pretty impressive numbers on their
>  productivity and quality.  He claims that they employ a team programming
>  approach which is far more effective than the "rugged individualist"
>  philosophy that US programmers prefer.   
>  
>                            ----------------                                           I love these so-called "impressive numbers", since when has good software 
been about "impressive numbers". When was the last time you used a japanese
spreadsheet. I agree that developing software requires team players, but
it also requires an individual creativity. Analogously, a software product 
may be completely bug free, but is it any use? likewise, a product may crash
every fourth time you use it, but still be extremely useful.

By the way, there is an american company which practices many of the same
techniques as these japanese software factories, it's name is Microsoft.
A good idea for you would be to switch over to the Microsoft C/C++ compiler
and get a taste of a development environment with some really impressive 
numbers.

>
>  As you read the manuals and try things out, inevitably you
>  will find things which do not work as you expected them to.   
>

Borland's on-line help and printed documentation blow any other compiler
vendor's, japanese or american, out of the water.

>  I'm a beginning Windows programmer, so I will naturally tend to assume
>  there's a high likelihood that the problem is with me.  But I've also 
>  had enough experience with PC software to know that there's a very good
>  chance the problem is with them.    Since this discussion began, I've had
>  to call Tech Support about 5 problems:   3 Borland, 1 Lotus, 1 Datastorm.
>  Of these 1 Borland, 1 Datastorm, and 1 Lotus were *bugs in the product*.
>  1 Borland was a "feature" of the IDE, and 1 Borland was a mistake on
>  my part.   So I don't think my track record is that bad, and therefore
>  I think my criticisms are legitimate. 
>

If you want to waste your time with what are 60% of the time "legitimate"
criticisms, go ahead. I would rather get my work done.

>  They could minimize a lot of their Tech Support costs by having more 
>  reliable products in the first place!  This is not just because there
>  would be fewer bugs to call about.  It's mainly because of the odds that 
>  go into making the call-or-not-to-call decision:   If I know that only
>  1 of the last 5 problems I had was due to an error on my part, and the
>  others were shortcomings of the manufacturer then what should I assume
>  about problem number 6?                                                
>
To the point, I would rather have Borland's IDE, even with a few GPF's 
every once in a while, than anyone else's. 

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc