-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gabriel Redner Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:16 AM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [math] fpclassify.hpp fails to compile with Intel icc 11.1
Hi Gabe
In this case, no reason at all. 1.42 is the version that comes prepackaged for Ubuntu, so that's what's I had installed. However, this is just a small academic project, so there was really no barrier to downloading 1.45, dumping it into our source tree, and pointing the build at it.
On the other hand, I have worked in a large development organization which was quite conservative about upgrading to the newest version of any library or tool. Upgrades take time, and if they temporarily break someone's setup (or even a whole team's!) they can consume a huge number of man-hours. Even worse if the new version brings a new and unknown bug with it. So, those managing our projects tended to be cautious about upgrades. We'd use old versions of libraries, old compilers, everything. We were usually a couple of years behind in our boost version, and our compilers were quite a bit older than that. As long as it worked, we wouldn't touch it until someone could make a good case for the benefits of upgrading outweighing the risks. In the case of this bug, such questions as "Do you *have* to use the boost::math special functions? How much effort would it take to just roll our own? Does the new version bring in any known regressions? How long has the new version been 'in the wild,' and how well is the library vetted in general?"
Of course I can only speak from my own experience - I have no idea if such practices are common, but hopefully this is the sort of information you were looking for :)
Thanks for this reply. I understand some of the pressures to keep with 'The-Devil-You-Know', but I have a suspicion that these hyper-cautious users don't know how much testing multi-platform Boost code gets, so that things that will bite them are exposed by these tests, no to mention the squeals from early-adopters users who find themselves bitten. But we see a steady stream of users on this list who have been bitten by bugs that have already been squashed in later version. So I feel that even cautious users should be aware that (provided they don't go for the released-today hot off Sourceforge and wait until the dust has settled, perhaps for a few weeks) the balance of risk is much more in favour of using recent releases than they think. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com