Re: Bjam in C++?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-29 10:04:26

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> > Right. And since in C++ we're not limited in any way, we can do
>> > things efficiently. The only necessary thing is that interface with
>> > Jam be thin, so that we don't loose all performance gain on that
>> > boundary.
>>
>> I don't think that's the only neccessary thing. If the interface is
>> too thin, then you're stuck dealing with unexpressive Jam data
>> structures in C++. 
>
> Why? If interface is thin you can convert Jam data structures into anything 
> you like.

Wasn't the whole point of keeping the interface thin to preserve
performance gain? Data conversion is expensive.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com