From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-16 14:52:17
Martin Bonner <martin.bonner_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ----Original Message----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: 16 August 2005 14:19
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] boost dll versions
>>> While the breadth of support has helped boost gain wide acceptance,
>>> it is also the single biggest fault of the library as well.
>> ?? Breadth of support has many benefits and only a few costs, and most
>> of those fall on the library maintainers. Library users (ahem, like
>> you) might pay for a slight reduction in velocity, but that's all.
> No, there are two further costs that library users pay:
> a) Features that are not implemented because they are too hard on older
> b) Features that use a less convenient syntax because supporting the more
> convenient syntax is too hard on older compilers.
Those things don't generally happen, because we have an unwritten
policy of coding for the ideal and asking users to jump through a few
extra hoops when using a substandard compiler. See, for example,
> c) Features that are not implemented because the library maintainer has
> spent her limited time on maintaining support for older compilers.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk