On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> While I sympathize with the concern that "supporting more than one 
> compiler is a maintenance burden", this still leaves me feeling a little 
> uneasy. Ensuring that our code builds successfully with multiple 
> compilers is a useful way to keep us from becoming dependent on quirks 
> of a particular tool, and different compilers may provide different 
> (valid, useful) diagnostics that we should not simply ignore.
> Our C/C++ code should (IMO) be standard and portable enough to build 
> with any modern, mainstream C++ compiler; writing code for a clang 
> monoculture feels wrong, a bit like building websites for a Blink 
> monoculture...

I understand your point of view but I don't think that ensuring that we 
continue to support a closed-source commercial compiler from Microsoft purely 
for these reasons is something we should expend resources on. We don't support 
building with Intel's C compiler and that has not historically been something 
we've worried about.

dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to