[boost] Re: config.h[pp]

From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-14 19:37:11

> Let me put it this way: I compile all my code with a real existing,
> publically available compiler (egcs-1.1.2), use only standard code
> (somewhat ascertained by '-pedantic -ansi -W -Wall') and no compile
> time switching as long as I'm working on stuff which is supposed to
> work with a standard conforming compiler (eg. the 'dir_it' obviously
> needed some compile time switching because it left the realm 
> of standard
> C++ and entered other realms like eg. POSIX). I once tried to compile
> eg. the priority queues with a compiler from some lame 
> Richmond located
> compiler vendor. To pretend that I had few success would be an
> overestimate: It would kind of imply that I had at least some 
> success...
> Apart from the technical problems I have the additional organizational
> problem that my system does not run any proprietary operating system
> required to run certain also proprietary, non-free compilers. Thus, it
> would require a substantial investment to put me into a position where
> I could even attempt to port the free code to some inferior platform.
> 
> Sorry, but just the fact that some compiler has the biggest market
> share is no argument for me to spent my spare time to increase the
> usefulness of this compiler. OTOH, I'm working as consultant and can
> definitely be hired to port my code to some strange platform (and for
> support if this is desired and/or necessary despite the excellent
> documentation :-) Pay me and I will hack what you want me to
> hack (of course, the costs depend on what you want me to 
> hack, however,
> porting my or any Boost code for a free release would be in or below
> the range for "normal" [German] consulting rates, ie. what I currently
> get).
> 
> Baseline: I like to hack and do so for free but only if it is fun.
> Supporting non-standard compilers is no fun (at least not to me) and
> would also cost me money. 
> 
> Dietmar
> 
> PS: The offer of consulting does *NOT* imply that I'm 
> unemployed! However,
>     porting my own code to some system would be a better job 
> than hacking
>     the stuff I'm currently hacking (using the above mentioned lame
>     compiler anyway...).

Wow, I guess I really pushed one of your buttons <g>. Sorry, man.  However,
there's *no such thing* as a totally compliant compiler, so ignoring the
outfit in Redmond for the nonce, do you really want to limit the usefulness
of your code to a tiny fraction of compilers that can handle it with no
modifications?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications