I doubt that when comparing it to the development progress of gcc for example.Any competent compiler writer will crank out a self-hosting C++ compiler inside of six months from scratch, eight months if they have to write their own lexical and syntactic analyser. It may not be the all-singing, all-dancing, fully optimizing compiler that MSVC, GCC or Intel offer but it will be able to compile itself and it will produce reasonably good object code.
Well, of course it may be possible. But I won't believe it without a proof.
Boost.Spirit is fine for playing around and doing some parsing and fits well into an existing c++-code.I think I'd have an easier time convincing all the artists on the team to use GIMP and Blender instead of Photoshop and Maya.
I know there are more powerfull parsers, but Boost.Spirit isn't bad ...
Well, of course it's my own opinion. But gcc ..."Best" at what exactly? There are many measures of "best" but oddly enough I have never, ever heard a professional software engineer who has shipped actual product who had to use GCC after working with some of the successful commercial compilers ever describe GCC as "best" at anything other than cross-platform compatibility, and then only begrudgingly.
- Implements almost all C++0x features.
- Conforms most standards.
- Optimizes better than most other compilers.
- Is completly free and cross-platform compatible.
Thats makes it my personal best compiler.