From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Vendor Claims - To Believe or Not to Believe ... Message-ID: <7116@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 18 Nov 89 19:30:55 GMT References: <8911171513.AA16049@fa.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu List-Id: >From article <8911171513.AA16049@fa.sei.cmu.edu>, by Judy.Bamberger@SEI.CMU.EDU: > BUT - When was the last time one accepted any tool vendor's word > about their own product without serious questioning and justifying > thereof? And reproducing such a statement out of such context - > to my naive view, anyway - is a bit irresponsible. Forgive me, Judy... obviously you are aware of comparisons which were not supplied by vendors, which scientifically control every conceivable variable, and which are completely unassailable. Since I am clearly citing comparisons which are less valuable, please contribute the results of these more valuable comparisons to the discussion so that all of us can increase our understanding. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu