Re: [Boost-users] Wave: how to recover after errors?

From: Max Motovilov (max_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-09 21:00:09

Paul,

I've argued both sides of this issue to death in the past, so I'm certainly
not going to do it again. Suffice it to say that if you cannot fix the
defective code (typically, because it is part of the codebase you are not
expected to modify -- for example, part of the library headers shipped with
your compiler, or a 3rd party library you have to use), and you cannot
direct the tool to work around it then you have to throw away one or the
other. The real world choice is often in favor of the bad code, not the good
tool. I am not saying that it's right, just that it's the reality.

Note that Boost libraries (and their developers, which, I understand, means
you too :) ) go to great lengths to preserve compatibility with as many
compilers as possible, despite sometimes having to work around glaring bugs
and/or incompatibilities with the standard. Otherwise the number of Boost
users would have been a lot smaller, and irrelevancy is a bigger risk than
indirect support of bad practices. This is obviously a matter of balance,
but I imagine that the heaviest weight on the opposite side of the scales
comes from the expense of supporting the workarounds, not from the fact that
those workarounds somehow encourage people to use broken compilers.

Programming after all is not an art into itself, it is a process of building
software for a specific purpose, and with a whole lot of constraints
(budget, schedule, learning curve, irrational preferences of the
management -- you name it...). The fewer constraints are violated by a
specific tool, the more likely it is to be used. That's all I'm saying...

Regards,
...Max...