Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: Functions as Filters (was Program Reuse...)

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-12 10:40:03

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]>
> If your framework doesn't account for exit status codes and
> doesn't provide an exception mechanism for communicating the exit
> status, then you assume nothing can fail whether by omission or
> comission.

This is simply beyond the scope of my framework at this point, I don't think 
the ideas I proposed will ever see the boost::light, however so this point 
is probably moot.

> You've tried to suggest that you weren't expert to explain
> various shortcomings and here you tried to make yourself
> knowledgeable, if not expert, on what "most programmers require."
> I simply called you on that.

I am very competent in C++, however I have worked for quite a while in a lot 
of different languages, which helps give me insight into what programmers 
require. I think being an expert in C++ would be a hindrance to designing 
the interface for libraries. Besides being an expert in C++ is a very 
subjective idea.

> Granted, I could have omitted the first sentence and avoided the
> trouble.  For that, I'm sorry.

No worries.

>> > This would be even easier to assemble via scripting and you don't
>> > need to compile anything or maintain source and binaries
>> > independently.
>>
>> I am perfectly aware of how to use the various shells and scripting
>> languages. I don't see how that is relevant to a discussion of C++
>> techniques.
>
> I had no idea of what you or others reading the thread knew,
> hence my discussing the matter.  As to how scripting is relevant,
> I thought I made that pretty clear in what you snipped: shells
> are very good at I/O redirection and assembling multiple programs
> into a new program, without requiring that the code conform to
> any structure except using stdin and stdout.  This raises the
> question of whether your idea has merit within C++.  (If all you
> have is a hammer....)

I thought it was obvious that shell scripts are superior for several tasks 
than C++. What concerns me is that whether or not something is easier in 
another language (e.g. bash or dos shell) shouldn't affect whether or not 
these capabilities have merit for C++. However some concrete reasons for not 
using scripts combined with C++ code, is that most scripts are platform 
dependant, and don't integrate well with C++.

CD