Subject: Re: [boost] [Christian S] Spirit and ANTLR - Request for example
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 13:21:43
To be honest, my original reply about Spirit was answered in the
context/belief that it was a private email. So when I claimed that Joel el
al were being "silly" about Spirit, I thought it was a private response, but
still respectful. Saying that somone is "silly" about something is different
when you say it privately or publically.
I have since learned, in spades, that said response was not at all
So, do I now retract what I said? No. I belived it then, and I believe it
now. Would I have phrased it differently if I thought it was going to
Even so, I can't really bring myself to back down. Spirit is looked at being
the "way of doing language" in C++ these days, which is a crying shame.
There are better tools than Spirit.
Spirit is *not* the best way of making a parser. Is ANTLR? I don't know. But
Spirit is clever more than it is useful.
Does that make me a bad person for saying so? Maybe. Am I big enough and old
enough and, yes, experienced enough to say so here, and anywhere, and wear
the consequences? Yes.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:03 AM, David Bergman <
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Christian Schladetsch wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>>> I for one intend to read or respond to no more of your posts. Your words
>>> clearly indicate that don't want to be part of this community, so you are
>>> wasting my time.
>> I was asked for my opinion of Spirit. I think it's fine, but I also think
>> that the C++ compiler was not meant to be a language tool.
>> Disregard me as you wish,
> Christian, what are you trying to achieve here? There are a lot of
> experienced and skilled, and some are just outright smart ;-) , people on
> this list. You do not have to bow to the "gods of Boost" as you stated it,
> but definitely show respect for other people. I think your proposed "best
> practices" library is completely outside the Boost scope, and explained why
> I think it is so in a few posts. Everybody else who have spoken, with the
> exception of Thorsten, seem to agree. The thing is that neither of us used
> the word "silly" about either your creation or you. Some might start to do
> that, though, if you continue your quest of "telling the truth."
> I think C++ (and even C) indeed was meant to be a "language tool", in the
> sense of providing the bare necessities but complete power instead of being
> bulky per se, but I think most Boosters understand that Boost is stretching
> the limits of the template system, and are equally frustrated as you with
> the poor error messages one gets deep down a template instantiation. That is
> why BCCL was a welcome addition to the growing Boost family.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk