Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 05:42:18 +0000
I'm totally aware of this problem.
Which is caused by all build systems being quite bad.
I never seen it as normal for developers who write C++ code to not understand how their code gets built, the numerous problems I have seen are many to count.
Build systems are hard, and they are not at the quality that they need to be.
I put it to you that the objections raised here are a product of the failings of the build system, not of the feature being proposed.
________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:50:17 AM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Revising #pragma once
On Thursday 29 August 2024 14:59:31 GMT-7 Tiago Freire via Std-Proposals
wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that the "bad cases" are not just a product of bad build
> architecture, if done properly a compiler should never be presented with
> multiple alternatives of the same file. And putting such requirements on
> compilers puts an unnecessary burden on developers to support a scenario
> that it is that is arguably bad practice.
They may be, but they exist. I'll agree that the majority of the bad cases are
bad architecture, but I cannot guarantee they ALL are.
The last time this discussion happened, I mentioned another argument: the
problem that when this problem happens, it happens to the person who is
compiling, not the person who wrote the code. Very often, the person building
the code has much less knowledge about the intricacies of the language, has
little time to debug it, and often has no power over the build environment.
That means we transfer the problem from the developer of the content to the
user of the content and/or the compiler.
Which is caused by all build systems being quite bad.
I never seen it as normal for developers who write C++ code to not understand how their code gets built, the numerous problems I have seen are many to count.
Build systems are hard, and they are not at the quality that they need to be.
I put it to you that the objections raised here are a product of the failings of the build system, not of the feature being proposed.
________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:50:17 AM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Revising #pragma once
On Thursday 29 August 2024 14:59:31 GMT-7 Tiago Freire via Std-Proposals
wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that the "bad cases" are not just a product of bad build
> architecture, if done properly a compiler should never be presented with
> multiple alternatives of the same file. And putting such requirements on
> compilers puts an unnecessary burden on developers to support a scenario
> that it is that is arguably bad practice.
They may be, but they exist. I'll agree that the majority of the bad cases are
bad architecture, but I cannot guarantee they ALL are.
The last time this discussion happened, I mentioned another argument: the
problem that when this problem happens, it happens to the person who is
compiling, not the person who wrote the code. Very often, the person building
the code has much less knowledge about the intricacies of the language, has
little time to debug it, and often has no power over the build environment.
That means we transfer the problem from the developer of the content to the
user of the content and/or the compiler.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2024-08-30 05:42:23