Re: "delete" asserts in debug build, multiple inheritance (msvc 7.1)
 
* Alex Blekhman:
"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" wrote:
While one can't blame Bill for the coding error, he shares a lot 
of the blame for allowing it to ship, by prioritizing flashy 
stuff over good QA.
I beg to differ. I don't know where this myth came from, however 
it's quite
tenacious of life. I heard it in the past and occasionally hear 
today that MS ships undertested and unstable products with catchy 
garish UI. In fact, MS' products are some of the best in the 
market.
Hm, I don't know if this is off-topic or not, but I really must take 
exception to that statement.  While some few MS products are really 
extremely good (the Visual Studio debugger springs to mind, while the 
rest of that product is very bad), MS products generally sell for 
three reasons only: (1) an established de-facto monopoly, (2) that MS 
has the manpower and $$$ to do things that require manpower and $$$, 
not ability, like e.g. grammar checking or clip-art, and (3) the 
embrace and extinguish tactic, which is a business model, not 
technical ability.
For a recent example of lacking quality assurance, Windows XP SP3.
This thread is, for that matter, another example.
As a third example, take Word, the MS flagship application.
How long until MS fixes e.g. master document support (infamous, it has 
never worked and it /reliably/ destroys your documents, i.e. that they 
become unreadable by Word, the creating program!), bulleting (which 
could more aptly be described as bullying, where Word insists on 
forgetting things and changing things, willy-nilly), unwanted 
reformatting (where e.g. footnotes suddenly acquire a huge gap above 
them, the fix is to exit Word and start new instance), the "read only" 
problem (where suddenly the document becomes read-only as far as this 
instance of Word is concerned), so on and so forth.
Instead of fixing such things, MS ships new versions of Word with ever 
more flashy and unusable GUI.
As a fourth example, take the clipboard viewer.
In Windows 2000, crippled it by extreme featurism, introducing 
overhead, unusability and security holes.  In Windows XP, removed it 
from Start menu, presumably because it had become so bad.  More 
positive, removed most of the Windows 2000 idiot features.  More 
negative, forgot to update the window title (in XP it's still 
"Clipbook" although the program is no longer that) and help system, 
and forgot to remove that nasty service for communicating clips over 
local area network.  In Windows Vista, removed it altogeter, 
presumably because so few used it after it had been crippled (Win 2K) 
and removed from Start menu (XP), without any reasonable replacement.
As a fifth example, just take the Vista contact list.  Hey, it's 
filenames, not contact names, it shows.  Turn off the Explorer lying 
about filenames (filename extensions, needed for programming work), 
and the contact list shows up with ".contact" at end of each item. 
And by the way, that Explorer lying is a sixth example.  Each example 
brings in tens or hundreds more, by association.
The list is endless.
98% of MS products lack basic quality.  Visual Studio debugger being 
an extreme exception.  I don't understand how MS could produce it.
There are few SW vendors that can match MS as far as 
stability and documentation are concerned.
Heh heh.  It reminds me of a dry-wit comment in, I think it was, 
[comp.programming], "the best that can be said about this code is that 
it demonstrates the author's competence".
That said, and which brings this back on-topic, MS has done admirable 
things with Visual C++, bringing it much nearer standard-conformance. 
   If only they could fix it so that it's standard C++ (with language 
extensions, of course) by default, e.g. supporting standard 'int main' 
without having to use explicit under-documented option.  And in that 
direction, standard-conformance, also admirable what they've done and 
are doing with Internet Explorer (although that program is a host of 
malware vectors, I guess it's practically impossible to fix /that/).
Cheers,
- Alf
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?