Subject: Re: [boost] CMake - one more time
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-24 14:01:17
On 4/24/16 10:07 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> Ahhh yes. That's the real problem. What you characterize as a
>> solution/feather, I characterize as a symptom of fundamental fault. Do
>> have have to troll the whole net to differentiate a function? Of course
>> not. That fact that this is now an acceptable answer is testament to
>> the sad state of modern software development!
> (And sadly I must also include C/C++ in this - the world's greatest software disaster, but let's not digress...)
LOL - +1 but ...
>>>> And the documentation actually makes it worse because it suggests that the system is simple to use when it's actually
>> not. It makes naive users feel like they're stupid - whether they are or not.
> At least I know I'm stupid - but I still want to get things to work.
LOL - note that when one manages to make it to work, he feels smart -
even though he might not be.
>> LOL - I'm referring to discussions such as this one. The fact that
>> everytime a question is raised, someone has an answer for some specific
>> scenario. This is deemed to be support that the system is a good one.
>> This the exact wrong conclusion! It seems that it never occurs to anyone
>> that the fact that such a question has to be ask in the first place is
>> an indicator that something is fundamentally wrong with the concept
>> and/or implementation.
Thanks for that, it gets lonely being me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk