Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03

Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 08:35:52

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Gregory Crosswhite
<gcrosswhite_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:48 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
>> Well, then the person who doesn't put the work in to learn to use the
>> library *and* learn to read the compiler messages properly is *the*
>> problem.
>
> I really don't understand this condescending attitude towards people who decide not to use a new library because in their particular circumstances the cost of using the library was greater than the utility it provided, as if *those kind of people* are the real problem rather than the *high cost of using the library* itself.
>

No, this is not condescending -- this is being realistic.

There's a lot of C++ libraries out there in the world and only a few
of them push the boundaries of what's possible with C++. Absolutely
nobody is forcing anybody else to use whatever compiler or library to
do whatever you need to do. We're all making choices here and if
people choose to complain rather than bone up and do the work then I'm
sorry but there's not much sympathy going around here for that.

> Listen, I love learning new libraries and languages. Â When I first discovered Boost one of the things I loved to do was to skim through the documentation of all of the libraries to see what they had to offer me because I thought it was *exciting*. Â However, its not like I have an *infinite* amount of time to become an expert user in every library that exists. Â If a library requires a lot of time and trouble on my part and simply doesn't offer me enough to make up for this, then I will stop spending time learning how to use it so that I can spend that time learning things that are more useful, interesting, and fun.
>

I don't see how this is relevant.

> Maybe one day I will have a need that Phoenix fills so well that it will be worth the investment of my time to figure out how to harness its full power; Â I am completely open minded to that possibility, and if that day comes I will be happy to invest the time to learn how to use it. Â Unless and until that day occurs, however, it doesn't make me a "backward-thinking" person that I will instead focus my limited time on more useful pursuits (for me) than learning how to use Boost.Phoenix --- such as arguing with people on the Boost mailing list!
>

Who's arguing? I certainly am not.

Regarding the backward-thinking comment, it refers to developing
libraries that use antiquated (read: non-modern) C++ approaches and
hacks to shoehorn functionality that's not in the language to do
something novel for novelty's sake. I also don't think it was directed
at you specifically so I don't know why you're taking it personally.

I was asking a question and I don't see how your answers to my
questions were supposed to enlighten me about the situation I was
originally curious about. So I ask again:

Why are people blaming the libraries for horrible error messages when
it's compilers that spew these error messages?

Cheers

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
http://goo.gl/CKCJX