Damn! I emailed the company and asked... oh see for yourself:
>Because we're proud of it. > >Regards, > >Tim > > >At 09:20 AM 7/8/02 -0700, you wrote: >>Why in the world would you add this, much less call it a "feature?" >> >>#BLOAT nexp allows the programmer to create a bloated target program, one >>which is artificially increased in size to match or exceed that generated by >>some BloatWare compilers. They are "proud" to add to the problem. GREAT!!! I think I'll stay away from THAT company. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:58 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate > function. > > > > you forgot: "Buy this new PCB. It has new features..." > > > > Oops, I forgot, for readers of THIS forum, that's what a) put > the bread on > the table, and b) what fuels all of this upgrade stuff in the first place > (not to mention, what goes into that cell phone, automobile, TV, and > computer, the last being the forcing function that drives the OS > upgrade, to > accommodate the new features the PCB brings to the consumer's PC) > > "forcing function"? > > I don't mind forcing functions when they are in equations, but I hate them > when they are the reason for upgrades. So much of the upgrade forcing > function is needless bloat. In fact, I just got a newsletter from > PowerBasic for their new v7.0 Basic compiler for Windows. In the list of > new features it has: > > #BLOAT nexp allows the programmer to create a bloated target program, one > which is artificially increased in size to match or exceed that > generated by > some BloatWare compilers. > > I am not joking, this was taken from their website. I'm not knocking > PowerBasic. To the contrary, they recognize the bloated nature of modern > software too. So the question becomes: who generates the bloat in modern > software, and why? It is obviously not necessary, since PowerBasic can > generate smaller programs. > > The next version of Protel had better run good on my dual-PIII box... > > Best regards, > Ivan Baggett > Bagotronix Inc. > website: www.bagotronix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate > function. > > > > > ************************************************************************ > * Tracking #: 4BF3F11570CE9947B191006B59B84AFFA60DBBE5 > * > ************************************************************************ > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
