Re: Unparsable gcc version string? [WAS: lily 1.4.15]
Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:51:49PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> We don't support any other compilers, and with version checking we can
> "Support compilers"? Unless you're doing something inherently
> unportable, that's disgusting.
Thanks for the compliment. Do you have any idea how much development
time and goodwill it takes away from your project if you try to
support > 1 C++ compiler? Remember that Lily started six years ago.
Been there, done that, it was a nightmare*), so we chose to only
support gcc. In retrospect, using C++ was probably a bad choice.
But if you're really that distgusted, you can always send us a patch,
and pledge to answer build problems with other compilers, if you think
that's a fun thing to do. We're having enough of them supporting only
gcc (eg, see start of thread). You'll need to be very friendly and
patient with our non-programmer users, ok?
*) Think buggy compilers. That need extra or special code. That
don't come with a debugger. That don't have an open bug list. That
don't take well documented bug reports. That don't come with [free
or non-root-account] upgrades. That don't come with source.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <email@example.com> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com