Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 04:33:52
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 25 November 2011 02:48, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> But it's not the library emitting these horrible error messages. So
>> why is this tied with the library and not the compiler?
> Imagine you know nothing of boost. You're using C++ and you're used to
> the normal error messages, not great but you understand them. Then one
> day someone points you to this exiting lambda emulation called
> Phoenix, you see the demos and they look great. You sit down and try
> writing a small program. And pages and pages of error messages fill
> your screen. You don't then think, "my compiler generates bad error
> messages" as it's normally good enough. You think, "I don't like this"
> and it happened as a result of using Phoenix. So the link is made,
> "Phoenix creates horrible error messages".
This is exactly where I was a few years ago and what I though exactly
was: wow, GCC creates horrible error messages.
I never for one second blamed the library because I *knew* that it's
not the library's fault that the error messages are generated by the
compiler and not by the library. Why are we accepting illogical
reasoning *at all* as a valid reason for "argument"?
>> Why aren't
>> people saying "I don't want to use this compiler because it's crappy
>> at generating error messages for *any* code"?
> People are reluctant to change from what they're used to. Â The
> following is from a post about google's use of clang. Remember that
> many C++ programmers won't even bother to try clang, let alone give it
> a week.
I work at Google. Before I joined Google, I've been using four
different compilers. Having a sane build system and *patience* and
willingness to learn are *required* to get anything done in this
world. Why are we suddenly surprised or even encouraging being lazy
just for the sake of it?
Besides, this is anecdotal. Hardly evidence.
Anyway, I think this discussion is moot now because I haven't seen one
logical refutal of my reasoning nor have I seen one clear answer to
the questions I've asked that have sound logic.
Have a good day guys, I'm now crawling under a rock. See you all in
another 6/7 months.
-- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk