Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 17:26:29

> Basically I would love to copy the tutorial to my own
> project and edit it to make my test.  That might sound
> ridiculous - but that's would I would like to be able it do.

Could you be more specific: what kind of tutorial, what topics should cover?

>> But my position is that we need to consciously
>> move away from old compilers to make code base healthier.
>
>> Requirement for feature compiler support is also scaring. I would really 
>> prefer
>> not to do this.
>
> I'm not sure what this refers to.

For example you just commented out random order of test cases feature 
support
Now I need to mark in docs this particular compiler doesn't support this 
feature. This is some work to maintain such a table.

>> This looks like two contradictory goals: you may not be able to solve
>> someone problem in 2 hour using facility with minimal functionality
>
> LOL - again I think you're underestimating the impact even a minimal
> facility can have.  Remember that the usual alternative is to do no unit
> testing at all.

In my personal opinion from usability/learning curve stand point there is no 
reasons to use anything but complete Unit Test Framework. It's just as easy 
and in a long term much more powerful.

> I envision a common situation - (In fact, at this very moment I'm stuck
> on another project and I find my self in this exact situation).  I'm 
> working
> on my next wizbang project and I'm under huge pressure to fix a bug.
> I've been working on it for days with no luck.  Now I realize that its
> much deeper than I thought and that it could be anywhere.  In desperation
> I look to boost and find Boost Test.  The introduction shows me
> the joys of unit testing which I haven't been using.  I'm really
> desperate and will try anything that only takes two hours to try.
> I down load boost headers.  Copy the tutorial example from
> boost test an make a test for one of my routines.  2 hours.
> Still haven't found my bug but since I still don't know what to do
> I repeat the processes for the rest of the program.  The bug
> turns out to be pretty stupid and easy to spot - if I had only
> thought to look at the right place.  I leave the boost test
> stuff in because now its "free".  I've been kidnapped into
> the boost community in spite of myself.

It's all good and interesting but would you prefer minimal testing 
component? You stuck with a single BOOST_CHECK tool and couldn't figure out 
why particular assertion fails. You could use debugger but using 
BOOST_CHEKK_EQUAL would give you much more change to figure it you quicker 
without one.

> Contrast that the current situation.  I look into boost test.
> Well reading the documents is a couple of hours.  Then
> there is bjam and library building and linking.  Right away
> I'm on to something else.

I could reinforce existence of inlined components that allow to skip library 
building. Also just reading getting started page should give you enough to 
start in your scenario above.

> fyi - my current situation is programming a gameboy color
> to implement a hangglidng flight instrument.  This thing
> is a bitch to program.  I could sure use boost test
> here - any chance of a straight "C" version?

I doubt it. ;)

Gennadiy