Hi David, To be honest, my original reply about Spirit was answered in the context/belief that it was a private email. So when I claimed that Joel el al were being "silly" about Spirit, I thought it was a private response, but still respectful. Saying that somone is "silly" about something is different when you say it privately or publically. I have since learned, in spades, that said response was not at all "private". So, do I now retract what I said? No. I belived it then, and I believe it now. Would I have phrased it differently if I thought it was going to [boost]!? YES! Even so, I can't really bring myself to back down. Spirit is looked at being the "way of doing language" in C++ these days, which is a crying shame. There are better tools than Spirit. Spirit is *not* the best way of making a parser. Is ANTLR? I don't know. But Spirit is clever more than it is useful. Does that make me a bad person for saying so? Maybe. Am I big enough and old enough and, yes, experienced enough to say so here, and anywhere, and wear the consequences? Yes. Christian. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:03 AM, David Bergman < David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Christian Schladetsch wrote:
Hi Robert,
I for one intend to read or respond to no more of your posts. Your words clearly indicate that don't want to be part of this community, so you are wasting my time.
I was asked for my opinion of Spirit. I think it's fine, but I also think that the C++ compiler was not meant to be a language tool.
Disregard me as you wish,
Christian, what are you trying to achieve here? There are a lot of experienced and skilled, and some are just outright smart ;-) , people on this list. You do not have to bow to the "gods of Boost" as you stated it, but definitely show respect for other people. I think your proposed "best practices" library is completely outside the Boost scope, and explained why I think it is so in a few posts. Everybody else who have spoken, with the exception of Thorsten, seem to agree. The thing is that neither of us used the word "silly" about either your creation or you. Some might start to do that, though, if you continue your quest of "telling the truth."
I think C++ (and even C) indeed was meant to be a "language tool", in the sense of providing the bare necessities but complete power instead of being bulky per se, but I think most Boosters understand that Boost is stretching the limits of the template system, and are equally frustrated as you with the poor error messages one gets deep down a template instantiation. That is why BCCL was a welcome addition to the growing Boost family.
/David
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost