tooling quality and some random rant

[Jacob Carlborg]

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