Subject: Re: [boost] [ANN] CLI 1.1.0 released
From: Boris Kolpackov (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-21 11:23:16
James Mansion <james_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Perhaps if you had an option to compile the .cli file to code that uses
> the existing Boost command line interface support, then you would have
> a better reception here?
> Personally I'm all for mini-languages, but if the compiler doesn't use
> boost, and doesn't generate code that depends on boost, your post looks
> a bit like spam
It doesn't make "design" sense to do this. Boost program_options'
complexity comes from the need to have the specification in C++. On
the other hand, CLI generates really simple code because all the
information is available at compile time. In this situation adding
a dependency on program_options would be like putting text in a web
page just to get picked up by google. Now that I would call spamming.
The reason I announced CLI on boost-dev is because I tried to use
program_options myself but wasn't really satisfied with the result.
So I went ahead and coded my own solution which, IMO and at least
for some use-cases, is more convenient than program_options. I thought
it would be only fair to let others know about it. I don't think
boost developers/users would want to force others to use "their
solution" over a better alternative. Or would they ;-)?
-- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog Open-source XML data binding for C++ http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd XML data binding for embedded systems http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde Command line interface to C++ compiler http://codesynthesis.com/projects/cli
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk