tooling quality and some random rant

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Mon Feb 14 09:41:37 PST 2011


On 2011-02-13 20:12, Walter Bright wrote:
> Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:26:50 +0200, Walter Bright
>> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> golgeliyele wrote:
>>>> I don't think C++ and gcc set a good bar here.
>>>
>>> Short of writing our own linker, we're a bit stuck with what ld does.
>>
>> That's not true. The compiler has knowledge of what symbols will be
>> passed to the linker, and can display its own, much nicer error
>> messages. I've mentioned this in our previous discussion on this topic.
>
> Not without reading the .o files passed to the linker, and the
> libraries, and figuring out what would be pulled in from those
> libraries. In essence, the compiler would have to become a linker.
>
> It's not impossible, but is a tremendous amount of work in order to
> improve one error message, and one error message that generations of C
> and C++ programmers are comfortable dealing with.

I agree with you here except for the last sentence. Please stop saying 
it's ok just because it's ok in C/C++. Isn't that why we use D, because 
we're not satisfied with C/C++.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list