Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-05 16:39:25
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Kenny Riddile <kfriddile_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 3:39 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm just going to wait for C++0x lambdas.
Sorry, there is not point in me waiting for C++0x because I can only
use standard C++ in my application domain :((
Consider the following case:
1) I program an embedded platform.
2) The supplier of the embedded platform distributes also a certified
C++ tool chain (essentially gcc and gdb compiled, tested, and
certified for such a platform).
3) I cannot use anything but the certified compiler because if the
compiler generates the wrong code the embedded platform might use
actuators to make a big mess in the real world (this application is
not a website -- even if a few of my friends will be messed up
mentally if facebook were to shutdown for a week :) ).
4) The supplier has no intention to certify any C++0x or C99 or
anything else (that's a huge effort as they have to "guarantee" the
compiler will generate proper code).
I am sure in 10+ years a new embedded platform will come along with
C++0x... well, I am not sure but I hope so. However, for now, I am
"stock" with C++ (even pure C++ compliant preprocessor and template
metaprogramming tricks are seen suspiciously in this domain because it
is not clear if suppliers really test for them even if they are part
of the C++ standard...).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk