On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote: >> Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources. >> Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation >> of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such interest, and in the >> absence of such commercial interest, we do indeed come down to hoping >> to find the volunteer help that is needed. >> > > This is a hard task. A volunteer has to be both willing (easy) and > able (very hard). A lot of people that work on GCC have worked on it > for a gazillion years. How much code contribution in 2012 came from > people who did not work on it prior?
Volunteers don't necessarily need to be new volunteers. We also rely on existing volunteers continuing to do the work. > Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to > understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals > documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that > could disappear with one bus factor. Of course it's worthwhile, but it's the usual story. Who's going to do it? How do you force volunteers to work on simplifying existing code and documentation? Is that higher priority than "finishing" something like C++11?
