From: Maciej Sobczak (prog_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-10 04:10:14
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Not that I care about 2.95 either, but I think the reasoning in this thread is
> a bit faulty. Developers just say "it's too old and non-conforming". But who
> knows what's used in practice, especially outside of bleeding-edge Linux
LynxOS here (distributed real-time control systems), with g++ 2.95
toolchain. No way to upgrade for the foreseeable future due to the
complex net of dependencies between components, some of which are not
our own. Since g++ changed ABI in the meantime, upgrading the compiler
means that the whole world needs to be recompiled and relinked. This is
what makes the upgrade near to impossible.
I try to promote Boost for development here and there's a lot of
"resistance". If Boost drops support for 2.95, it might be an additional
argument against using Boost at all.
(On the other hand, if we're using stone-age compilers, we might as well
stick to some existing Boost version - if it's accepted for use - and
just not follow its evolution. That's still fine, because the most
fundamental Boost libraries are already stable and useable.)
This is not to tell you that you should keep supporting stone-age
compilers forever, just to show that the world is not composed of only
latest Linux distros that we can get with the Sunday's newspaper. There
are companies and institutions that are bound to older compilers and
cannot just press the "upgrade" button.
Having said that and being still completely serious, I'd drop support
for 2.95 and for everything else (VC++6.0, others?) that's already not
supported even by the company or organization that made it.
-- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk