On 6/24/2015 11:39 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 6/24/15 8:12 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
It is unnecessarily difficult because the clang developers, like the mingw-64 and mingw developers, cannot be convinced by intelligent programmers that hardcoded paths and the necessity of adding directories to the PATH variable, should not be a necessity for merely compiling/linking source code.
It is sometimes utterly wearying talking to these people, probably quite decent C++ programmers in their own right, and trying to convince them that their "Linux" toolsets on Windows need a better way to be used. They are just stuck in their own ways and usually refuse to budge.
At the same time, because mingw(-64)/gcc and clang are free tools and we are all appreciative of the ability to use them to test out Boost libraries, it is better to be civilized and a bit circumspect when trying to convince them of anything. Remember that these are normally first-rate compilers and their focus is on the compiler itself and not on the usability or documentation of their product.
LOL - I sense frustration here - and I'm totally sympathetic. I was thinking that it was just me becoming an "old person". So reading this makes me feel much better (unless you turn out to be an "old person" as well!).
The sense of frustration I voiced is because I can successfully argue about a better technical way to do things but the argument is not taken seriously if the current way of doing things is viewed as adequate for most end-users. The focus in clang and gcc is on the compiler and not on the end-user experience. Can I describe myself as being an "older person" without saying I am an "old person" <g> ?