"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
In the case of Fusion. I need the library to create matrices which work with types other than double.
Not really. You could have decided the abstractions provided by the library would be too expensive and coded everything by hand.
And I am not sure I totally agree.
If you're disagreeing, I think it's because I wasn't clear. I meant that "ConceptGCC really deserves more attention than it is currently getting."
OK. The first question is... why? I think I can answer that for myself, but what is in it for the broader audience?
Having concept support in the language revolutionizes the way we program with templates, and in particular, provides a massively improved experience for the casual user.
For myself an important issue is that I am, due to inertia, compiler bound. I love VC7.1. I love the IDE. (IIRC you call this ' screen scraping', but that's your problem).
No, I have never used that term, so that's your problem. Nyah nyah. I think IDEs are great and vc7.1 is a good compiler.
So that is a hurdle that ConceptGCC has to face for someone like me. I have my "comp.bat" file set up for checking that stuff compiles with gcc, but for effortless coding, I head straight for VC7.1. IOW your compiler/IDE has a great deal of power over what you do
Yep. That's why I am not tied to VS, as great as it is.
And , maybe ConceptGCC has a similar 'problem'(It's not really a problem) to the one I have with Quan, but probably more severe, in that most people are bound to old C style libraries, which frankly don't have a hope of compiling with ConceptGCC, due to the average *useful* 'Hack' optimisation's that have been applied. It's simply inertia again.
I don't know why you'd think that. If the library compiles with G++, it should compile with ConceptGCC.
I think what C++ needs most of all, is a standard GUI, because with that, it would be easy to plug ConceptGCC, the compiler, into a standard IDE.
That's what I do with emacs. It works almost dreamily well.
And with a standard IDE, it would be quite easy to apply a couple of switches to switch compilers...
Who needs switches? I just hit F7 and modify the compiler name in the command-line I have stored up for invoking bjam before hitting return. Anyway, you can do all this compiling with bjam from within VS's IDE. I know people do that.
So, of all the libraries that C++ should have, I think that a standard GUI is the most important, because it would be so much easier to try out and demonstrate major changes to C++.
I think an easily modifiable compiler framework written in C++ would strike lots closer to the mark than a standard GUI, for that purpose.
Simply put, ConceptGCC needs a nice UI to show it off, and its a bit sad that C++ has no way to provide that.
A nice UI to show off ConceptGCC? I'm giggling.
I guess that is the root of the problem.
( And I am currently concerned with trying to make some inroads into that problem)
I wish you well. I think it would be cool, but I don't think it's going to help much with core language development. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com