Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 05:58:45
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Yes, they're not important enough for Boost if what it provides isn't
>> compelling enough to be provided by Boost. If the only thing a library
>> has is "prettier error messages when things are broken" then it's a
>> great library for broken code -- which makes that advantage null and
>> void because IT'S NOT AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE YOUR CODE DOESN'T COMPILE.
>> Am I not getting through here?
>> Whoever loved a library that looked great when your code fails to
>> compile? This is CRAZY TALK.
> How often do you write code that is right the first time around? Even for
> an experienced programmer, and especially with a new library, more often
> than not your code will initially be broken. To fix it, you need to
> understand the problem, and you need the library's help to do so.
IMO, a library like any other software development tool, should assist
us in the software development /process/. Having a code that compiles
and later that runs with no known bugs are just two stages of such a
process. Another earlier stage is to have code that does not compile.
This stage is still part of the software development process, and I'd
expect libraries and other tools (editors, compiler errors, etc) to
assist us in making the code compile. Therefore, I reject the argument
"which makes that advantage null and void because IT'S NOT AN
ADVANTAGE BECAUSE YOUR CODE DOESN'T COMPILE", on the contrary the
advantage remains as a better tool that help you making the code to
compile with no error and therefore serves one step of the overall
software development process.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk