Re: shared_ptr from dinkumware ... comments??
"zebedee" <zebedee@zebedee.net> wrote in message
news:453ac8d7$0$971$44c9b20d@news2.asahi-net.or.jp...
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Well, while I've never thought that the boost code is anywhere near
production quality, I guess such comparisons mean almost nothing
without the actual code used for testing. One could easily come up
with tests which revert the results. A comparison made that way is
just marketing hype which no professional would take seriously as it
is.
Note also the thread starting here. When challenged with specifics of
apparently inaccurate claims and test results on the Dinkumware website,
he chose not to respond. Draw your own conclusions.
http://tinyurl.com/yewopx
Hmm. I never even noticed that this particular thread kept on going.
Reading it now, I see that one of our tests was challenged (in a
separate thread) and I responded forthrightly about the problems
with it. It has since been fixed. A second test result was also
challenged in this particular thread, which I failed to notice until
now. Note that it involves whether a particular version of gcc defines
a macro properly -- behavior that's notoriously uneven across multiple
packagings of the same compiler. So we're talking, worst case, about a
grand total of two challenged tests out of thousands. Draw your own
conclusions.
In this particular case -- how well Boost and libstdc++ conform to
the small part of TR1 they currently implement -- I did respond. And
I described how others can review and objectively evaluate whether
our tests, and our test methods, give a fair picture. And I stand by
the final conclusion:
..... here are the weighted pass rates for all of TR1:
15% Boost
12% Gcc
100% Dinkumware
We've worked long and hard, and at considerable expense, to bring
the world what many have claimed the world wants and needs.
Displaying our test results is one way of letting the world know
that we've delivered.
I don't mind a bit of healthy skepticism when one enterprise publishes
comparative test data about the competition. I do mind offhand remarks
about "marketing hype which no professional would take seriously" and
"apparently inaccurate claims" to which I allegedly "chose not to
respond". They all display prejudgements that happen to be inaccurate
and that display a bias at least as pernicious as what I have been
accused of showing.
I've been discussing verifiable facts about software technology. The
statements I cited above are unsupported conjectures that reflect on
my ethics. Where are the moderators when you need them?
{ Hopefully an accurate and objective picture of these tests has
emerged now. The policy is to be lenient, and accept when in doubt:
some cases including the article first quoted from above are hard to
decide, because they can be interpreted in more than one way.
However, the article you're responding directly to here, with direct
allegations about you personally, seems to have slipped through the
net, and for that I apologize on behalf of the moderators. -mod/aps }
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]