Can you imagine how much more productive the world would be-

...if the numbnutzes who write and maintain GCC would provide error messages that vaguely resemble the error they claim to report?

Case in point number one hundred thousand something: I got the following error message (names have been scrambled to confuse the innocent):

module.cxx:409: static_cast from 'SomeClass *' to 'SomeOtherClass *'

Well, OK...lessee here now. SomeClass is derived from SomeOtherClass (although it is a protected derivation) so it should work, right? I mean, Barney says it should work, and this is GCC (albeit one of those bastard versions 2.96.whocarestheANSIstandardisanuisancenotaguideline). Maybe it's bitching about the protected derivation? No, that's not it....

Well, to make a long story somewhat shorter, after about 40 minutes of consulting guides and staring at the code, it finally dawned on me that SomeClass was only visible in module as a forward declaration. <mumble /> So could you, the vaunted oligarchy of GCC, have deigned to add two words to the error message to make it clear what the problem was with the "static_cast from 'SomeClass *' to 'SomeOtherClass *'"? I mean, shit! Two fucking words!!! The words "incomplete type", which by the way do appear in other of your error messages (I'm sure those error messages violate some internal standard for being too clear and too helpful, and the programmers who had the bad form to include them in a build when no one was looking have been dispatched from the Temple with extreme prejudice....) A full 40 minutes could have been saved if the message had simply read:

module.cxx:409: static_cast from the incomplete type 'SomeClass *' to 'SomeOtherClass *'

(OK so I added a third word, the article 'the'. I'm sure that must make the entire phrase incompatible with the rest of GCC.)

Documentation is sooooo droll; it must be so beneath them.

Post #252,239 by jb4 4/14/06 4:59:47 PM Reply	Can you imagine how much more productive the world would be- ...if the numbnutzes who write and maintain GCC would provide error messages that vaguely resemble the error they claim to report? Case in point number one hundred thousand something: I got the following error message (names have been scrambled to confuse the innocent): `module.cxx:409: static_cast from 'SomeClass ' to 'SomeOtherClass '` Well, OK...lessee here now. `SomeClass` is derived from `SomeOtherClass` (although it is a protected derivation) so it should work, right? I mean, Barney says it should work, and this is GCC (albeit one of those bastard versions 2.96.whocarestheANSIstandardisanuisancenotaguideline). Maybe it's bitching about the protected derivation? No, that's not it.... Well, to make a long story somewhat shorter, after about 40 minutes of consulting guides and staring at the code, it finally dawned on me that `SomeClass` was only visible in `module` as a forward declaration. <mumble /> So could you, the vaunted oligarchy of GCC, have deigned to add two words to the error message to make it clear what the problem was with the "static_cast from 'SomeClass ' to 'SomeOtherClass '"? I mean, shit! Two fucking words!!! The words "incomplete type", which by the way do appear in other of your error messages (I'm sure those error messages violate some internal standard for being too clear and too helpful, and the programmers who had the bad form to include them in a build when no one was looking have been dispatched from the Temple with extreme prejudice....) A full 40 minutes could have been saved if the message had simply read: `module.cxx:409: static_cast from the incomplete type 'SomeClass ' to 'SomeOtherClass '` (OK so I added a third word, the article 'the'. I'm sure that must make the entire phrase incompatible with the rest of GCC.) Documentation is sooooo droll; it must be so beneath them. jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #252,244 by tuberculosis 4/14/06 5:07:53 PM Reply	Blame Ken Tompson Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge, nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant "?" lights up in the center of the dashboard. "The experienced driver," he says, "will usually know what's wrong." [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #252,646 by jb4 4/19/06 6:01:46 PM Reply	Ken shall consider a clue-by-four applied... ...upside his pointed li'l haid, with extreme prejudice! jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration

Welcome to IWETHEY!