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

Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-24 12:40:12

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: 24 June 2015 16:40
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
> 
> 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!).

Sorry - I'm guilty - didn't you see my handsome mug shot and guess the in-plain-sight truth?

But I think that much of the problem is assuming that users 'just know that'.

Even the aged can cope with complexity, but not too much that is just 'obvious'.

I fear some Windows-phobia in attitude too (resenting that Windows is very successful, but that the
file system and structure has muddied the waters quite gratuitously - did Bill really need to use \
for / ? ).

Meanwhile, Windows-phobiacs neglect that there are far more potential users on Windows than on
*nixes for many software tools. "If it works on Ubuntu, it is good enough" philosophy.

The desire to make things 'just work' has often proved brilliant when it does and a disaster when it
doesn't.  Bjam/b2 is a good example and my difficulties another.

The main way we can make life a little easier is to document the 'obvious' better - but that's
boring, and having cleared a hurdle we want to run on to make up for lost time - mea culpa.

<rant mode off>

Meanwhile re-iterated thanks to Boosters who have got me almost there with Clang 64-bit.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]