On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:43:16 -0600 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/28/14, 5:39 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > oh, wait... such tool was suggested years ago and has no signs of > > "official blessing" until this year's summer! and now it can't fix > > two-year-old code. > > I don't understand this attitude. Don't wait for any sort of gold star > rubber stamp ticker tape > parade. If you think something is worth doing, do it. writing and *supporting* such tool (linter, fixer) which is inevitably tied to the compiler and stdlib development process is a hard work. the author of the tool wants to be sure that this tool is "blessed", so he can interop with other teams. users of such tool wants to be sure that this is not the "one man work" which can disappear any time when author becomes bored. actually, such tool is a part of the compiler suite. that's why it's very little motivation to do it without "blessing". someone can write some quickhack tool for himself to fix *his* codebase, but making such tool usable for others, documenting it and so on is a great amount of work. see, i have the tool that fixes my dmd code for gdc. it successfully processes all my code, 'cause i know my coding habits and can do this with simple regexps. can this tool be used by someone else, on very different codebase? i doubt it. can it be fixed to process other codebases? i doubt it, it doesn't even have the proper parser. do i motivated to improve it? not at all. "blessing" is a motivation. like, say, D->C++ translator which i suggested in the thread about bootstraping D compiler which is written in D. the answer was "no, it's unlikely to be accepted". do i want to spend alot of my time on the code that i myself don't need at all, and without any hope that it will be used later? nope. i have alot of things to code that are interesting for me. "blessing" for companion tools is a motivator.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
