Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:06:46 -0800, Brad Roberts wrote: > On 2/13/2011 3:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> Michel Fortin wrote: >>> But note I was replying to your reply to Denis who asked specifically >>> for demangled names for missing symbols. This by itself would be a >>> useful improvement. >> >> I agree with that, but there's a caveat. I did such a thing years ago >> for C++ and Optlink. Nobody cared, including the people who asked for >> that feature. It's a bit demotivating to bother doing that again. > > No offense, but this argument gets kinda old and it's incredibly weak. > > Today's tooling expectations are higher. The audience isn't the same. > And clearly people are asking for it. Even the past version of it I > highly doubt no one cared, you just didn't hear from those that liked > it. After all, few people go out of their way to talk about what they > like, just what they don't.
Half of the readers have already added me to their killfile, but here goes some on-topic humor: http://www.winandmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ipad-hp-fail.jpg Sometimes people don't yet know what they want. For example the reason we write portable C++ in some projects is that it's easier to switch between VC++, ICC, GCC, and LLVM. Whichever produces best performing code. Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the performance is 10-20 behind competition, fast compilation won't help it.
