Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Richard Erlacher
10/26/11 19:17
  10/26/11 19:18

Read: 463 times
Denver, Co

#184384 - That's not what I'm asking them to do
Responding to: Andy Neil'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.


List of 53 messages in thread
Linking C programs with Keil evaluation      David Prentice      09/06/11 11:02      
   Eval Tools.      Michael Karas      09/06/11 11:15      
      That makes sense      David Prentice      09/06/11 12:11      
         It's not that much more useable      Richard Erlacher      10/25/11 18:44      
            Work-around for evaluation version limitations?      Per Westermark      10/25/11 23:50      
            Marked -1      Michael Karas      10/26/11 06:26      
               I'm not so sure you're right here ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 07:55      
                  Irrelevant if people have ideas - should they be debated?      Per Westermark      10/26/11 08:19      
                     There's a reason I haven't done it ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:36      
                        Would not represent a valid evaluation      Per Westermark      10/27/11 02:00      
                           Wait a minute ... You've got this wrong ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 09:57      
                     One question      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:43      
                        What about the guy who simply wants to evaluate the product?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:05      
                           sometimes coding situations and requirements differ      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 18:57      
                        How would you like it?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:13      
                           That's not what I'm asking them to do      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 19:17      
                              A message from the OP.      David Prentice      10/27/11 03:55      
                                 I don't supply the compiler ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:08      
                        Wrong view on evaluation tools      Per Westermark      10/27/11 03:32      
                           as I've said before, where you sit determines what you see      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:47      
                              Still failing to recognize reason for hole in code map      Per Westermark      10/27/11 12:33      
                                 You missed my point again      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 15:35      
                                    Simulate or use Logic Analyser      David Prentice      10/28/11 05:41      
                                       ramblings      Erik Malund      10/28/11 07:51      
                                       Using evaluation software and hardware      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 09:44      
                                          The above would be true if....      Erik Malund      10/28/11 10:24      
                                             You don't seriously believe that, do you?      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:54      
                                                A thief is a thief        Per Westermark      10/29/11 07:01      
                                                   Indeed...        Michael Karas      10/29/11 09:47      
                                                   FIrst of all, I don't advocate theivery      Richard Erlacher      10/29/11 14:46      
                                                      and more mumbo jumbo in the reply      Erik Malund      10/29/11 15:47      
                                                      Can _you_ not read debugger output?      Per Westermark      10/29/11 17:39      
                                          8255      Andy Peters      10/28/11 13:26      
                                             Yes, but they're still shipped on some 805x trainer boards      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:42      
                                             Just sayin'      Michael Karas      10/29/11 05:50      
                  Square Wheels for the Car      Michael Karas      10/26/11 10:06      
                     I disagree ... not that that should surprise anyone      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:54      
                        eval and evaluation      Erik Malund      10/26/11 11:25      
                           Yes, if only they were useful ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:31      
      Also "LPC900 Studio"      Andy Neil      09/06/11 12:32      
         They all seem crippled      David Prentice      09/06/11 14:22      
            comments      Erik Malund      09/06/11 16:17      
            They all seem crippled      Andy Neil      09/06/11 16:22      
               Yes ... SDCC ... the obvious solution      Richard Erlacher      09/08/11 08:30      
                  what's obvious about it      Erik Malund      09/08/11 09:00      
                     Why not?      Andy Neil      09/08/11 10:48      
                        reasons      Erik Malund      09/08/11 10:59      
                           Unfortunately      Andy Neil      09/08/11 14:13      
                              re Keil      Erik Malund      09/09/11 07:13      
                                 15 years ago?      Maarten Brock      09/09/11 09:28      
                                    OK, maybe not      Erik Malund      09/09/11 09:48      
            reasonable price      Erik Malund      09/07/11 03:41      
            raisonance is 4k with no code offset      Marshall Brown      10/25/11 13:59      

Back to Subject List