PE> PE> Where can I FREQ it from?  If it's not FREQable, it's vaporware,
PE> PE> just like OS/2 4.0.

PE> FM> Interesting definition of "vapourware", on that
basis Corel Draw is
PE> FM> vapourware - you can't freq that.

PE> Or buy it in a shop.

FM> What about the latest program you or your colleagues wrote at work? It's

Yes.  If you have a problem, and I respond with "CVCHG fixes
that", oh, BTW, you can't get a copy of CVCHG, then it is vaporware. 
It is not a solution to the given problem.  I can't tell you that CVCHG is
better than Norton's Utilities, because the former is not available as a
solution to the general problem.  It is vaporware.

PE> FM> Pascal so you couldn't recompile it if you didn't like the way it

PE> I have a 100% ISO conforming Pascal compiler here.

FM> Probably won't help you. 

You said it was written in Pascal, I have a 100% ISO conforming Pascal
compiler.  What more do I need?

FM> You usually write in ISO C, others write in K&R
FM> C or whatever variations their compiler supports which is useful.
FM> They're still writing in C.

Nope.  There's only one C language, or at most two.  The rest are COMPILERS
and if I was writing in them, I'd say I was writing in "Borland C++
3.1 Patch Level 2".  I'm not, I'm writing in C.  Like I said, I have a
100% Pascal compiler, you said the program was written in Pascal.  Were you
lying?  Remember, *100% conforming compiler*.

FM> Quite right, my mistake. The PKTJOIN archive from which I have been
FM> examining the source to yours is dated 22/3/95.

That is the latest.

PE> FM> Robust software responds gracefully to misuse.

PE> You can say it is not robust, you cannot say it has a bug in it.

FM> Perhaps you can say that, I'd call it a bug.

And I can call you a 73-year-old faggot.  It's easy to lie, isn't it?

PE> FM> Consider it non-existent then, if you want to propose that as a
PE> FM> criterion for existence.

PE> I do.

FM> It's farcical, as my comment at the top points out.

Nope, it is not a competitor to PKTJOIN, because it doesn't exist as a
solution to the general problem.

PE> That's robustness.  The original PKTJOIN didn't check a single
PE> error at all.

FM> Glad to see you fixed some of the bugs.

Not so glad to see that you're still a 73-year-old faggot.

PE> PE> FM> it's 30% faster than yours

PE> PE> It may well be 30% faster than the one you have, but there is no
PE> PE> way in the world that it would be faster than the one I could
PE> PE> write if I had wanted to.  I would do so, except I don't have your
PE> PE> vaporware one available to keep you honest.

FM> I didn't write mine especially for speed, just as it came out
FM> "naturally" (this is Pascal after all). But as it happens I can't
FM> off-hand think of anything which would make it *significantly* faster,
FM> ie worth the bother.

It wasn't worth the bother in the first place, for 30%.  With C, I haven't
even begun to scratch the optimization, it was written as the simplest way
to get the job done.  A job which was done something like 3 years before
yours (and counting - no vaporware doesn't start counting until it ceases
to be vaporware).

PE> Yep, if you want a real test, you have to do that.  First I will
PE> be checking to see that it was written in Pascal, not assembler.

FM> Not a line of assembler in it. And it compiles with my Pascal compiler.

Will it compile with my Pascal compiler?  It's 100% conforming to the standard.

PE> You can't be sure of what I can write if I actually have some
PE> performance/size objective I am trying to meet.

FM> Sure, I wasn't talking about what you could write, just what you did.
FM> You could probably write a bug-free one too.

I already have.

PE> It doesn't, it's vaporware.  Just like OS/2 4.0.  No point comparing
PE> OS/2 4.0 to Windows NT and saying OS/2 is the better OS.  It isn't.
PE> It doesn't exist.  BFN.  Paul.

FM> I've never seen it either. But then I don't think I've seen any version
FM> of OS/2, or WinNT. But I have seen my PKTJOIN, it exists.

It exists at the same level as OS/2 4.0, ie not at all.

FM> So do you want it or not?

Yes, if you want a serious discussion on performance.  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---