On 14:18 Tue 12 Feb , gast128 wrote:
Like I said most work is already in the libraries themselves, it is now a matter of glueing the parts together.
Ever watched Top Gear? "How hard can it be" is just a prefix to failing gloriously. You underestimate the complexity of these seemingly simple utilities. I see a lot of applications parsing the commandline by hand, but almost never as good (e.g. order of arguments) and readable (form a client
If used correctly, c++ can much easier to read just because of the automatic management. At least it makes porting them to other (non unix, non cygwin) platforms more easily.
I wonder which platform there is that was neither Windows nor Unix. There are many but on second thought they are all related to Unix: Android (kinda linux); Minix (posix compliant); MacOs (also unix?);
On 2/12/2013 2:32 PM, Andreas Schäfer wrote: perspective) as Program Options. private embedded os. All have these gnu tools?
All those things aside, Artyom (see his mail) has a point: there are already ports of the GNU tools for Windows. Rewriting code just for the sake of basing it on Boost isn't enough of a justification IMHO. Ok, it was just an idea.
When using Ubuntu i had to learn all those new commandline tools and options. But in fact they are so powerful I would like to have them in 'my fingers' by using them on Windows on a daily base as well. Ok cygwin is an option but I thought maybe also a good idea to rewrite them in modern c++ in hopefully a readable manner, so that they are safeguarded for the future on any platform.