Re: [Boost-users] RTTI for VC 6

From: Samuel (samuel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-15 18:24:21

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] RTTI for VC 6

> from the message I originally responded to:
> "There might have been a warning, but Boost produces so many other
warnings
> that I missed the warning if there was one."

That is a statement of fact. That is not what I call dumping. What I call
dumping is being critical in a manner that expresses emotions.

> I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to continue to have to write
> code for a crippled product.

Note what was said about Borland. I think there are other examples also, but
I can't find the relevant page that rates the various compilers. Do you know
for a fact that VC 6 is worse than the others, or are you discriminating
against VC 6 for some other reason? How well does the IBM compiler perform?

Another relevant question is how well does the Gnu compiler rate when tested
for support of Windows? As far as I know, it does not support Windows
(runtime) as well as VC does. So before you criticize use of VC, please be
sure that there are reasonable alternatives. I think that if the Gnu
compiler was as useful for Windows development as VC is, then there would be
much more use of the Gnu compiler.

> It's very
> likely that I'll consider the management who made the decision to not
> upgrade are the culprits.

You are making an assumption that is incorrect.

> According to another message in this thread, Microsoft will drop support
in
> 46 days.

I said nothing about Microsoft support of VC 6; someone else did, but I did
not.

> I posted where I thought you "dumped" on the warnings. the exact substring
> to which I refer is:
> "but Boost produces so many other warnings"

Again, that is not what I call dumping. I should have used another term or
method of saying what I meant to say. I really do think that your previous
comments expressed your emotions about Microsoft and unfairly discriminated
against Microsoft in a manner that is not relevant here. If the Microsoft VC
6 complier is the most difficult one for the Boost libraries to support,
then it is reasonable to discriminate against it. If not, then it is
unproductive to discriminate against just Microsoft.

There is plenty to criticize Microsoft for, so please don't think I consider
them to be perfect or totally innocent. One big problem is that in order to
upgrade to .Net we must purchase a Visual Studio update, which is a
significantly greater cost. Microsoft often churns us for updates that have
much more than we really need. Further discussion of that could be done in
another message or forum or whatever. The important thing is that you can't
accomplish anything useful by criticizing my use of VC 6. Such comments
can't improve the situation. Whatever you are trying to accomplish, there
are more productive ways to do it.