RE: [PATCH INSTALLED]: const typedefs part 19/N

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 28 August 2007 18:24, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On 8/28/07, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
>> On 28 August 2007 18:05, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/28/07, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:

>>>>   Also, when that time comes, we *do* have to have the discussion about
>>>> increasing the requirements on ordinary users as opposed to developers.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I can see how this would be a problem what with our *millions* of
>>> users without C++ compilers.
>> 
>>   Sarcasm is cheap, and falsified statistics are easy to pluck out of thin
>> air, but they're both a bit insubstantial when it comes to establishing a
>> point. 
> 
> So wait, you really believe even >10% of our users don't have C++ compilers?

  Nope, I just don't pull figures out of thin air.  Ever.

  (Plus see also Kenner's subsequent reply.  It's not just how many there are;
the number must also be weighted by how completely they're stranded beyond
recovery by the changes that we may make).

>>   Is there any limit to the extra requirements we impose on end users beyond
>> which you /would/ believe we're making it more difficult for them?
> 
> Honestly, if it makes it better for *developers*, and the requirements
> are common, no.
> The vast majority of our users do not compile from source.  The number
> of people who make binary packages/compile from source/etc who do not
> or could not easily get a C++ compiler is near 0.
> Sorry.

  For pulling figures out of thin air?  Apology accepted!  <insert HHOS tag
here!>

> What I see users begging us for is a faster, smaller, better code
> producing compiler.  Not a compiler that "does not add requirements".

  What you *see* is a private, subjective and anecdotal experience, which cannot
be made commensurable with anyone else's private subjective experiences in the
absence of direct telepathic communication.  I like hard measurements because
they can be communicated in objective terms, and I am innately suspicious of
anything that is justified by any kind of reasoning that seems to me to be an
"all-the-world's-a-X" argument.

  I'm not really sure why you're even bothering to reply when as far as you're
concerned there's nothing to discuss and there could never be any kind of problem
under any circumstances.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....