Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC

Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-24 11:39:58

On 6/24/15 8:12 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
> It is unnecessarily difficult because the clang developers, like the
> mingw-64 and mingw developers, cannot be convinced by intelligent
> programmers that hardcoded paths and the necessity of adding directories
> to the PATH variable, should not be a necessity for merely
> compiling/linking source code.
>
> It is sometimes utterly wearying talking to these people, probably quite
> decent C++ programmers in their own right, and trying to convince them
> that their "Linux" toolsets on Windows need a better way to be used.
> They are just stuck in their own ways and usually refuse to budge.
>
> At the same time, because mingw(-64)/gcc and clang are free tools and we
> are all appreciative of the ability to use them to test out Boost
> libraries, it is better to be civilized and a bit circumspect when
> trying to convince them of anything. Remember that these are normally
> first-rate compilers and their focus is on the compiler itself and not
> on the usability or documentation of their product.

LOL - I sense frustration here - and I'm totally sympathetic.  I was 
thinking that it was just me becoming an "old person".  So reading this 
makes me feel much better (unless you turn out to be an "old person" as 
well!).

This is a problem of software developer's in general.  They/We 
can't/won't  step back and look at how something is actually going to be 
used.  I believe that this is due to a number of factors.

a) Coding the coolest, cleverest, most obscure, ideas is fun and lets us 
show of our otherwise unappreciated skills.  The rest is not fun - it's 
just work.

b) Stepping back to take an idea and make it into a real product that 
everyone can use is actually a separate job than doing a) above.  That's 
why we have product managers and don't let software developers actually 
design products.  The result might be very cool, but would only sell a 
couple of copies.  Of course of free software that doesn't matter - so 
it's cool but sells zero copies.

c) Many of these projects are very cool but have a short half life.  How 
many fail to last or require too much maintenance.  Most of them actually.

d) I'm wondering if getting old enough to actually consider one's own 
mortality doesn't help make good software "product".  I'm no longer 
interested in making something that's just cool and shows off my skills. 
I want make something that changes the world, hopefully beyond my life 
time.  (I know this is a big dream - but what else can one do?).

e) One thing that I think boost has been successful at is to provide a 
forum, facilities, and constructive feedback and criticism to those who 
feel some of this as I do.  I think it has been somewhat successful in 
this endeavor.  Software gets produced, it's documented, it's designed, 
it get's used, it has greatly affected the future development of C++ and 
I believe the development of software generally.  It will have an effect 
beyond one's life time.

This is what motivates me to spend time on bugging the bjam people, 
making the incubator work, trying to get more resources dedicated to 
library maintenance and all the other little projects and initiatives 
that I suck myself into.  Although precious little progress has been 
made on these issues, even a little is an improvement.  And there is 
always hope for the future.

I realize that this totally off topic.  (Hmm maybe it's not - given the 
quoted passage above). Sorry about that. I just wanted to get this off 
my chest.

Robert Ramey