From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-13 14:55:30
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> >
> > What I don't like about it is that it requires the use of GCC.
What
> > we really need is a standalone utility that does this. Said
utility
> > needs to be highly portable, much like GCC itself, but should not
be
> > as complex or large as the full blown GCC compiler set.
>
> Why?
Why what? Why not as large and complex? Because it makes it harder
to install and, more importantly, use. A full compiler needs this
complexity, but a tool like this does not, and I'd hate to have one
that was since it would mean just one more thing you'd have to learn.
> We could build the tool once for each platform and be done with it.
Building the tool isn't the main concern. If and when we have a
decent build system it should be trivial to build the tool even if
packaged binaries weren't available.
Bill Kempf