Re: [boost] [Christian S] Spirit and ANTLR - Request for example

Subject: Re: [boost] [Christian S] Spirit and ANTLR - Request for example
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 14:27:31

Sohail Somani wrote:
> Christian Schladetsch wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> As a user of both Spirit and ANTLR, I am aware of the merits of each.
> I enjoy this topic very much but it would be nice to hit the reset
> button on this thread.

I've been carefully not engaging Christian up to now.  But I think it is important to point out something to the rest of you and perhaps to him as well.  I learned this a while ago as a way to moderate my own conduct in a way that we would like Christian to do.  The key insight I had was that, in order for an interaction with another person to be constructive rather than destructive in nature, being right is not enough.  Being right is not enough.  So how do you know when it is not enough?  You need to ask yourself what the purpose and desired outcome of the interaction is.  Often when the purpose or desired outcome is to satisfy your own emotions it means that the interaction is ill advised and self moderation is in order.  Take Christian as a case in point.  He brought an idea to boost and had it shot down.  This produced an emotional desire to feel better by cutting boost itself down a peg, he does this by venting his old frustration about spirit error msgs. being hard to understand.  Since his goal in this interaction is now and has been from the beginning nothing more than to feel better about himself after getting his idea shot down I don't believe we can hit the reset button on the thread.

We see this same scenario play itself out on a regular basis where someone brings a new library proposal to the boost list, is offended when the response doesn't meet some unrealistic expectation of approval and volunteering to expend effort helping them, and then becomes defensive, offsensive or passive aggressive.  By engaging Christian we just fuel his anger, when what he needs is time to cool off and rethink things.  That's what I needed when I was in his shoes years ago.  I only wish I had been as successful in applying my insight about constructive interactions in the past as I intend to be in the future.

Regards,
Luke