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 11:21:55

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Christopher Jefferson
<chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 2011, at 14:56, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>
>> I don't get why broken code (whether code using Phoenix or Local)
>> should be the basis for whether a library is superior to another as
>> far as end-user experiences is concerned. It's broken code, it doesn't
>> even compile!
>>
>
> Because I have spent more than 10 minutes figuring why Phoenix code wouldn't compile, and that hasn't happened with any other C++ library. In general, when writing code programmers spend much more time with code which is either compile-time, or run-time, incorrect. If I wrote perfect code first time, then my job would be much, much easier! It is the compiler's fault, but in practice, it makes the library very, very hard to use.
>

Speaking from experience, 10 minutes is too much. I've used Phoenix v2
extensively and I've found that after reading the docs first before
trying to do anything with it that I got it easier that way. That said
I haven't tried Phoenix v3 though I've been debugging Spirit code
since the 2.x days -- again reading the docs, keeping them handy, and
not getting scared with compiler barfage.

I'm not saying there's no learning curve -- it involves reading the
documentation, trying things out, and getting the "spirit" of the
library and the semantics of usage.

But that's just me though and I recognize that others might not have
it as good as I did when I was learning both Spirit and Phoenix.

> Personally, if boost local was accepted I would expect to use it for a year or so, until I could assume people I work with all had decent C++11 compilers, and then drop it for lambdas. I'm never going to start using boost::phoenix in code I share with other people.
>
> Is that a good enough reason to accept it into boost? I'm not completely sure.
>

Exactly my point of contention too.

Cheers

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