From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-22 08:10:08
I was about to suggest that Boost skip support for both GCC, Intel and
VC++ entirely, and mainly focus on the Borland compiler running on
Windows 98. I had better withdraw that suggestion then...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
> Jarl Friis <jarl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> All true. Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one
> >> popular version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples'
> eyes) an
> >> important compiler to support anyway.
> > I will in line with the announcement suggest that any
> support needed
> > for or related to this particular gcc version should be
> redirected to
> > the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat).
> That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library
> developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first
> place, but since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything
> for users, leaves them in the cold.
> I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem
> remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you
> consider to be the "right" choice of software systems. At
> Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps
> against our users, because we're more interested in seeing
> our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of
> platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change
> that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)!
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk