On 11/23/2011 12:22 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
Are you really saying that it is "backwards thinking" to avoid using a shiny new library merely because it is so difficult to use in practice that it makes one's life harder rather than easier?
In a way, yes. It is the same reasoning why people avoided STL in the early days because of the "undecipherable error messages" it produces. Yet, for the early adopters who went ahead despite the bleeding edge, things got better and everyone benefited when more understood how things are, the limitations and gotchas. Someone even wrote a software (STLFilt) to make the errors decipherable somehow. This is boost and we push the limits. It's the same early adopters that went on to use heavy TMP libraries like Lambda. In the end, everyone, including the bleeding-edge-shy, benefited because C++ became a better language! No thanks to those who avoided using a shiny new library allegedly "because it is so difficult to use in practice that it makes one's life harder rather than easier." -- a misguided perception, IMO. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com