Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 19:40:35 +0200 (CEST)
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023, Ville Voutilainen via Ext wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 at 20:09, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> We are talking about students that will be taught this year and the
>>> next. The forthcoming contracts don't arrive in time for that.
>>
>>
>> Well then perhaps worth mentioning is that libstdc++ (at least) has something like it today. This is std::vector::operator[] from libstdc++
>
> It's perhaps worth considering that some teaching approaches don't
> require a particular environment and implementation, and don't
> want to spend time figuring out the same tooling solutions for
> multiple implementations.
Comparing the one-time cost of figuring out some flags for the 3 major
implementations (for some it may be as easy as selecting "debug mode" in
an IDE, which may even be the default, and a suitable list probably
already exists in a few places on the web) vs the time saved in debugging,
I'd recommend carefully evaluating this decision.
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 at 20:09, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> We are talking about students that will be taught this year and the
>>> next. The forthcoming contracts don't arrive in time for that.
>>
>>
>> Well then perhaps worth mentioning is that libstdc++ (at least) has something like it today. This is std::vector::operator[] from libstdc++
>
> It's perhaps worth considering that some teaching approaches don't
> require a particular environment and implementation, and don't
> want to spend time figuring out the same tooling solutions for
> multiple implementations.
Comparing the one-time cost of figuring out some flags for the 3 major
implementations (for some it may be as easy as selecting "debug mode" in
an IDE, which may even be the default, and a suitable list probably
already exists in a few places on the web) vs the time saved in debugging,
I'd recommend carefully evaluating this decision.
-- Marc Glisse
Received on 2023-04-30 17:40:37