On 2011-02-14 00:28, retard wrote:
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
I had something similar with an attachable keyboard.
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.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
