From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 05:12:54
Dan Nuffer wrote:
> rogeeff wrote:
> > Hi,
> > First of all I would like to say that IMO it is odd even to discuss
> > an ability to use Spirit for generic command line parser. It's like
> > use a canon to kill a fly. For one It is very expensive and heavy and
> > also I should drag it all over the place.
> That statement is completely false.
> Please don't spread FUD about something with which you are not familiar.
I think you'll agree that concerns about code size, speed, and dependency on
other libraries are in general reasonable. It would help a lot, if instead of
one person expressing such concerns and another person stating that there's
no need to worry, you'll provide us with a table of grammars and code sizes
on various compilers.
joel de guzman wrote:
> > It would be nice to have some numbers. Joel, do the Spirit guys
> > working on command-line parsers have any size numbers they can share?
> I'll ask... Judging from experience though, again, The code
> generated by Spirit shouldn't be much more the size of a similar
> hand written one
Again, I'd like to see numbers. After bcc has converted
tuple<int, int> t(1, 2)
in 40 assembly instructions, I don't believe much in optimization
capabilities of compilers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk