Re: (Off topic) VC++ 6.0 with fatal error C1001:

Posted by Luigi Ballabio-2 on
URL: http://quantlib.414.s1.nabble.com/Off-topic-VC-6-0-with-fatal-error-C1001-tp3200p3202.html

On 2004.08.20 13:04, Daniel J. Duffy wrote:
> I have a comment on your what somewhat emotive comment "sub-standard
> compilers".

Daniel,
        I should have expressed myself better. It wasn't my intention  
to do Microsoft bashing, or to imply incompetence on the part of VC++  
implementors. As you write,

> There are two kinds of compilers, those that do and those
> that do not support the ANSI/ISO C++ standard. Older versions of VC++
> did not support all features but VS 2003 does.

According to the above, I called VC6 (not later VC versions, which  
happily compiled the code) "sub-standard" as in "one that doesn't  
support the C++ standard completely."  There was no particular  
emotivity in it, except for my somewhat deplorable penchant for jokes.

In fact, I'm having some trouble in writing this mail. I don't want it  
to look like I'm defending any point (believe me, I'm not) but it's  
kind of difficult to do it when one doesn't personally know the person  
one's writing to. It's likely that we would have settled this in 30  
seconds and with mutual satisfaction if we had been talking in front of  
a couple of beers...

> Personally, my opinion is that all mistakes are made by the
> programmers. When I get a compiler error, I look at what I have done
> wrong.  I use the KISS principle always (keep it simple ...)

Absolutely.  In this case, what I have done wrong is using standard C++  
instead of the C++ subset digestible by all major compilers.
I take it as a fact (albeit an unfortunate one, but that's life) that  
the latter is the language to use. I would have done it, but in this  
particular case, I misjudged its extent--due to the fact that the  
function was IMHO a simple one.

> With templates one has to learn how to crawl before we do the 200
> breast stoke in Athens.

Ouch. This is _extremely_ difficult to answer without making it look  
like one is bragging... honestly, in this case it seems to me that the  
point was not much one's ability in swimming but the more basic fact  
that one should check that the water is deep enough before diving--
which I admit I didn't.
But I'll stop here...

Cheers,
        Luigi