Subject: Re: [boost] [proto] Looong compile times and other issues
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-13 07:44:07
On 9/13/2011 5:22 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> On 13/09/2011 04:08, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> Sorry about that. I was just reacting to Joel F's note saying
>> "- fusion is also a big hitter" in a thread titled "[proto]
>> Looong compile times and other issues". I was just defending
>> Fusion with clear proof that the overhead is not due to Fusion
>> and that proof happens to come from Phoenix2 which uses Fusion
>> I agree. Let's not point fingers. I would've expected Joel F to
>> substantiate any claims like that with real numbers, lest it
>> starts to sound more like spreading FUD.
> Shortcut are to be blamed, qs Eric said, I was pointign out that, in some case, the
> cocktail fusion in proto transform leads to surprising CT and that, before seeign John
> code, it *may* be the case. I am using Fusion et al. for like eveyrthign, I start to know
> when and how stuff an get wrong, i wont take on me to spread FUDs on this subject.
Ok, fair enough. I'm sorry if I overreacted. I did not intend to
say that you are intentionally spreading FUD. What I meant to say
is that sweeping statements like that are easily misconstrued and
should better be substantiated by sufficient explanation, code
and real benchmarks.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.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