Subject: Re: [boost] [Removing support for old compilers]
From: Adder (adder.thief_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-14 02:37:43
On 1/13/14, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> And after the trial versions run out, how do you propose to test these
> compilers ?
I think that it might be possible for the command line tools
(compiler, linker, etc.) (as opposed to the IDE) to still work after
the trial period ends.
> I worked with Borland C++ and C++ Builder (3,4,5,6) a number of years
> ago. Given Borland's near total inability to fix longstanding bugs over
> the years I will never work with Borland/Codegear tools again, nor will
> I ever spend a nanosecond of time attempting to make any library I
> create work with Borland/Codegear compilers. Microsoft may be bad in the
> offhand way in which they refuse to fix or address C++ bugs which they
> have decided are not mainstream enough to spend time on but
> Borland/Codegear was truly hopeless. Others can do whatever they want of
> course but this is my own personal experience.
I respect that !
The part that is confusing for me is someone imposing that *no*
authors should be able to use a specific compiler with Boost even if
they wanted to.
Which results in no users being able to use that compiler with the
(updated) parts of Boost that otherwise happen to work, due to the
library not relying on certain features or due to previous work or due
to current work or due to miracles.
> I do not believe, as opposed to your own opinion, that implementors of
> Boost libraries should spend unnecessary time trying to accomodate
> ancient compilers. If the modern compilers are testable and have at
> least adequate support, then I can understand trying to work with them.
I also do not believe that implementors should spend what they
consider to be unnecessary time and effort on anything.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk