Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 01:49:57

At 06:28 2005-12-05, Martin Bonner wrote:
>----Original Message----
>From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]]
>Sent: 05 December 2005 13:19
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?
>
> > Paul A Bristow wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> >>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Victor A.
> >>> Wagner Jr. Sent: 05 December 2005 01:02
> >>> To: boost_at_[hidden]; boost_at_[hidden]
> >>> Subject: Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?
> >>> (was:Re:Math/Quaternions compile problem in VC++6)
> >>>
> >>> and I'm all for retiring vc++6.0 support from boost (I've argued
> >>> this before).
> >>
> >> This is long overdue  and now that we have a reasonably compliant
> >> MSVC compiler that works on Windows 2000 up I can't see any excuse
> >> for not dropping support.  Things that this work will still work,
> >> but if not - tough. (I am not proposing ripping out all the #ifdefs
> >> relating the MSVC 6, despite the improvement in readability that
> >> might result).
> >>
> >> Should we have a straw poll of the lurkers - so that diehards can
> >> have their say - and then make a decision?
> >
> > What do you mean by "dropping support"?
>
>Excellent question.
> >
> > I am against dropping VC 6 regression tests in general because I want
> > to see what works on it, either for not introducing a regression, or
> > for ensuring compatibility where it's reasonably easy to do so.
>
>I agree with this.

I don't.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again. it _costs_ 
(money, time, effort) to keep the support there, and _not_ just the 
authors, it cost all of us (unreadable workarounds, extra source 
(extra time to compile), extra regresson tests being run (the source changed))
For cryng out loud Microsoft has NOT updated KNOWN BUGS in the STL 
implementation...not even with their (criminal, IMO) SP6 released last year.
<opinion...if you don't like my language or  "not being complimentary 
to ALL enteties involved in C++" stop reading now> The ONLY reason MS 
could have had for that SP6 release was to convince some people that 
it was still a product, it isn't, hasn't been for 4 years... ALL it 
has done is kept ALL C++ programmers needing to be aware of that 
broken compiler</opinion>  It's time to let it go

along the lines of someone suggesting getting rid of all the #ifdefs 
etc for vc6, I thnk it would be an interesting idea to see a flavor 
of the boost libraries that have NO workarounds, period!!  straight 
up "pure" ISO C++.... just so we can all see what "correct" code 
would really look like.  We might also discover that we're still 
doing workarounds that don't need to be there.

> > I do not oppose dropping VC 6 and 7 from the list of "release"
> > compilers.
>I think it is too soon to drop VC 7.1 from the list of "release" compilers.
>(But VC7.0 could probably go).
>
>
>--
>Martin Bonner
>Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
>Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
>ENGLAND Tel: [phone]
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"