On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:52:01 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
Good luck on getting many non-rpmed Perl CPAN modules to work, even
though they worked fine in FC3. Not everyone is a C programming master
with a PHD. Trying to figure out why someone in their right minds would
make a compiler not compile code it's previous versions compiled quite
happily is just beyond all logic in my opinion;
It isn't. Often programmers abuse weaknesses in the strictness of how a
compiler implements a programming language. Sometimes they do it
unknowingly, because an older compiler version seems to accept source code
which it should not accept according to programming language standards.
When the compiler engineers make the compiler better in terms of
compliance with the programming language standards, weak source code
likely breaks. Sometimes in obvious ways, sometimes is less obvious ways.
I am in full agreement with that point of view. Consider this,
however, rather than punish people by removing the capability in the
compiler, why not make it a command line "feature" that can be turned
on? This is enough of a nudge for stray programmers to fix their
errant code, but not as severe as to completely break a whole array of
software just because a group of compiler writers got all indignant
over "improper" coding practices and choose to punish instead of
teach. Also, and I am being serious, not everyone has a PHD in
software development and has probably learned on their own how to
program. This, to me, describes the open-source majority, in my
opinion. Frankly, enthusiasts make up the majority of Linux users. I
have been tinkering with computers since 1982 and I have programmed in
a variety of languages. Frankly, the only reason I never went to C was
simply for this specific reason. Different compilers had their own
"rules" and they ended up changing as time went on. I just wanted to
write a program and have it work without spending hours trying to
satisfy a specific compiler's quirks.
especially since no
English readable error is generated, except something cryptic that only
a hippie-haired college professor would decipher at a glance (and
probably with a condescending tone too).
These errors are for programmers. As a non-programmer, it would be very
difficult for a compiler to explain to you what problem was found in
the source code.
I am a programmer, just not a C programmer. I'd like to be able to use
the OS as a user as well. Limiting the usefulness of the OS to C
programmers is not too bright in my opinion. Besides, I can't even use
my language of choice without being a C expert as well, at least in
FC4. This is why the Perl programmers design the CPAN interface. When
CPAN breaks, "it" has hit the fan.
Good luck downloading anything from sourceforge hoping it will compile.
One thing packagers ought to do--and with some distributions they don't
seem to do it unfortunately--is shipping compilation fixes to the software
developers, so their next release includes such fixes if the developers
didn't ran into the problems themselves before.
The reason why you may find programs in Core or Extras, which build and
work, but which fail to build when you download them from their
developer's website, is that packagers patched them to make them build.
Many upstream projects don't use GCC 4.0.0 yet, neither the pristine
one nor Red Hat's improved and patched version.
One can't "RTFM" unless there's something to read. Perhaps better
documentation written for the casual user/programmer ought to have been
written on how to overcome these errors.