Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Local] Review
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 06:58:40
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 24 November 2011 10:47, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2011 6:37 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Then, th etool for fixing them are there, static-assert and concept check
>>>> are working rather nicely once you actually use them.
> Do that then. Fix these problems and you'll prove me wrong. Wouldn't
> that be nice?
Right/Wrong is so overrated. ;)
>>> Although I've always thought that bad error messages were because
>>> current compilers suck at making intelligible error messages.
> Not an easy problem to fix.
I agree. Never said it was easy though.
> Most people are more concerned with
> getting shiny new features than usability.
Which is unfortunate because it can't just be fixed by the library
writers because the compiler is the one that generates the error
messages, not the library.
>> It saddens me to see TMP-phobia creeping into Boost, of all places! :(
> To use something effectively requires understanding the disadvantages.
I always thought it was that to use something effectively requires
understanding the problem and whether that thing you have can be part
of a solution. Disadvantages only come into play when you're covering
the downside. If the tool is the right tool for the job and you know
how to use it, would understanding the disadvantages stop you from
using the tool?
> You can't wish them away with a silly label. If people find something
> difficult to use, then it is difficult to use.
... for those people. That doesn't necessarily mean it matters whether
they find it difficult to use if it's effective when it works and used
correctly. Does that remind you of a programming language we all use?
-- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX