RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-)
Keep in mind that Aleksey doesn't get paid for this and he answered your mail on his "free" time. Cut him some slack! I thought his answers for well written. -Mike Garriss -----Original Message----- From: Sam Gentile [mailto:ManagedCode@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:29 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-) Well at least you gave somewhat of an answer. I still want to understand how those particular macros give that portability. Sam Gentile .NET Consultant ManagedCode@nospam.attbi.com http://www.samgentile.com http://radio.weblogs.com/0105852/ -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garland [mailto:jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:13 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-)
<rant>
How positively delightful to wait 24 hours and get a non-response like this. This is like pulling blood out of a stone. At this point, I'll
just forget it and use something else. I do understand that Boost users tend to be extremely advanced C++ users. For the record, I have been programming in C++ for well over 10 years and still get confused at some of the things you do. I am questioning and not understanding your approach at all. Why? Well, lets look at Stroustrup, 3rd edition page 160 "Macros are important in C, but have far fewer uses in C++. The first rule about macros is: Don't use them if you don't have to. Almost every macro demonstrates a flaw in the program, or the programmer." Then "avoid macros." Now, I'm sure I'm missing your good reason but
go. To me, macros are an ugly legacy from C and render C++ code unreadable and maintainable. So, how detailed does my question have to be? I don't understand the whole approach and why it was taken. Is
Sorry for your frustrations, but imagine the frustration of the library author after yet another bizarre compiler error on perfectly standard C++. Anyway, I think the answer was in the previous mail: Portability. In an ideal world most of this sort of macro hackery wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, boost exists in the real world... there you that
clear enough?
This viewpoint is just fine if you are creating a library for one platform and compiler. The reality of the current world is that many supposedly standard features of C++ or parts of the standard library are not correct on many of the most common compilers. As a result, if you write a library 'to the standard' it might not get used much since it won't compile or work correctly for most people. In addition, many boost libraries push compilers to the limits and thus for some boost libraries the situation is even more severe. The result is that many boost libraries use various macro techniques to create portable code. Looking ahead a few years most of this will hopefully disappear. HTH, Jeff Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
You're right of course. I do realize that everyone works on this in their "free time," and what has been accomplished has been astounding to say the least. I'm sorry for my rant and I'll re-look at his reply and try to figure it out. Once again, I apologize. Sam Gentile .NET Consultant ManagedCode@nospam.attbi.com http://www.samgentile.com http://radio.weblogs.com/0105852/ -----Original Message----- From: Garriss, Michael [mailto:michael.garriss@abacus-direct.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:57 PM To: 'Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com' Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-) Keep in mind that Aleksey doesn't get paid for this and he answered your mail on his "free" time. Cut him some slack! I thought his answers for well written. -Mike Garriss -----Original Message----- From: Sam Gentile [mailto:ManagedCode@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:29 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-) Well at least you gave somewhat of an answer. I still want to understand how those particular macros give that portability. Sam Gentile .NET Consultant ManagedCode@nospam.attbi.com http://www.samgentile.com http://radio.weblogs.com/0105852/ -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garland [mailto:jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:13 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] A strange question-)
<rant>
How positively delightful to wait 24 hours and get a non-response like this. This is like pulling blood out of a stone. At this point, I'll
just forget it and use something else. I do understand that Boost users tend to be extremely advanced C++ users. For the record, I have been programming in C++ for well over 10 years and still get confused at some of the things you do. I am questioning and not understanding your approach at all. Why? Well, lets look at Stroustrup, 3rd edition page 160 "Macros are important in C, but have far fewer uses in C++. The first rule about macros is: Don't use them if you don't have to. Almost every macro demonstrates a flaw in the program, or the programmer." Then "avoid macros." Now, I'm sure I'm missing your good reason but
go. To me, macros are an ugly legacy from C and render C++ code unreadable and maintainable. So, how detailed does my question have to be? I don't understand the whole approach and why it was taken. Is
Sorry for your frustrations, but imagine the frustration of the library author after yet another bizarre compiler error on perfectly standard C++. Anyway, I think the answer was in the previous mail: Portability. In an ideal world most of this sort of macro hackery wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, boost exists in the real world... there you that
clear enough?
This viewpoint is just fine if you are creating a library for one platform and compiler. The reality of the current world is that many supposedly standard features of C++ or parts of the standard library are not correct on many of the most common compilers. As a result, if you write a library 'to the standard' it might not get used much since it won't compile or work correctly for most people. In addition, many boost libraries push compilers to the limits and thus for some boost libraries the situation is even more severe. The result is that many boost libraries use various macro techniques to create portable code. Looking ahead a few years most of this will hopefully disappear. HTH, Jeff Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
participants (2)
-
Garriss, Michael -
Sam Gentile