Re: [Boost-users] Boost: Getting Started on Windows

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost: Getting Started on Windows
From: Damien Hocking (damien_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-01 22:27:32

  On 01/10/2010 8:15 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Marsh Ray<marsh_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>> On 09/27/2010 02:40 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2010 18:43, Olivier Bertrand<bertrandop_at_[hidden]>    wrote:
>>>> c:\boost_1_44\boost\config\suffix.hpp(588) : error C2039: 'typeinfo' : is
>>>> not a member of '`global namespace''
>>>> c:\boost_1_44\boost\config\suffix.hpp(588) : error C2873: 'typeinfo' :
>>>> symbol cannot be used in a using-declaration
>>> It looks like this change broke Boost.Config on VC6:
>>>
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/61434
>>>
>>> If that's true then very little of Boost 1.44 will work on that
>>> compiler, since almost everything depends on the config headers. Is it
>>> worth fixing? Something like this was inevitable once testing stopped.
>> As a long time Boost user (yes, even since the VC6 days) I suggest that
>> Boost make an explicit policy change.
>>
>> Not only should VC6 be deprecated, not supported, and otherwise ignored in
>> Boost, but all its vestigial compatibility workaround code should be
>> actively ripped out!
>>
>> It's largely clutter at this point, and these breaks are evidence that it's
>> poorly maintained and not used or tested much either. A dangerous breeding
>> ground for bugs.
>>
>> This is when somebody raises their hand and says "But I need VC6 because
>> it's the only way I can build something for these military embedded WinCE98
>> things we're still contractually obligated to support for another 13 years".
>> We should all be very sympathetic, but that application should probably stay
>> on the last Boost release that works for them.
>>
>> Just think how much fun it will be to grep for those VC6 macros and submit
>> all those negative-LoC patches!
> Also speaking as a user of Boost since using VC6, +1
> VC6 was such a horrible system, so much code could be cleaned up if
> its support were stripped out.

 From experience with other C++ projects that required long-term 
support, dropping VC6 removed a lot of nasty special-case code.  It 
supported writing broken C++.  VC6 is now 12 years old, and the updated, 
compliant Visual Studio Express is free for the 32-bit Windows platform 
and VC6 never did 64-bit anyway.  +1 to dropping it.

Damien