Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-29 19:10:05

On 1/30/11 5:27 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>> [snip lots!]
>>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> No, sorry.  I'm trying to decide whether
>>
>> (a) You're describing general problems that I should know about but don't.
>> (b) You're describing problems that apply to advanced architectures
>> (NUMA) that I have limited experience with.
>> (c) You're confused, and these problems don't exist at all.
>>
>> Have you ever had the experience of talking to someone, maybe in a job
>> interview, and thinking "this guy is either a genius or an idiot but I
>> don't know which"?  That's what I'm getting here.  I hope that wasn't too
>> honest!  Sadly, I don't have enough time to delve any deeper.
>
> <offtopic>
> At that point, while grading exams, I usually give up trying to understand
> and award my students with a 'sympathy point'.
> That saves time on my end and honors the student for trying :-P
> </offtopic>

FWIW, I am an advocate of immutable strings and views. I've been advocating
that for a long time now (looking back at messages in this mailing list
from years back). The very design of immutable sequences is embodied in the
design of fusion, for example, where operations return new sequences or
views instead of direct manipulation. I won't go into this thread though
and I won't go as far as saying that std::string is broken. I believe both
should co-exist (immutable and mutable). I also believe that immutable
strings and views can be built on top of, and should accommodate, any
existing string including the C string through traits and customization
points.

I think Dean has very valid points that are unfortunately drowned under
heavy and wordy rationales which have the tendency of having more holes
which are potential reasons for misunderstandings and disagreements.
Bottom line: just do it and the work will speak out for itself. Talk
is cheap. Output and results (e.g. code and benchmarks) speak better.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net