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

Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-24 14:04:27

On 6/24/2015 11:39 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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!).

The sense of frustration I voiced is because I can successfully argue 
about a better technical way to do things but the argument is not taken 
seriously if the current way of doing things is viewed as adequate for 
most end-users. The focus in clang and gcc is on the compiler and not on 
the end-user experience.

Can I describe myself as being an "older person" without saying I am an 
"old person" <g> ?