tooling quality and some random rant

[retard]

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.