Re: [Boost-users] Boost and C++ "physical design"

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost and C++ "physical design"
From: Christopher Currie (christopher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-20 12:22:40

2009/3/20 Václav Haisman <v.haisman_at_[hidden]>:
> Yang Zhang wrote, On 20.3.2009 10:20:
>> Is there any advice on taming (1) the generated code size and/or (2) the
> What do you want to tame here? Sizes of executables are IME not a problem,
> unless you are on severally constrained embedded platform. Few megabytes of
> executable are usually insignificant compared to huge data sets that acompany
> it.

This is a naïve view at best. Commercial software, especially
downloadable software, can be very sensitive to application size both
due to the perception of bloat as well as the desire to improve
adoption by reducing the barrier of entry. This counts both for adding
new pre-compiled DLLs as well as the additional code size from
template instantiation.

I think that most Boost library maintainers are sensitive to the issue
of code size, and that the libraries that implement non-member
non-template function do so in a compiled library *because* they wish
to control code bloat. If there examples you see in the code where
this is not the case, there may be someone on the list who could give
an engineering rationale for why that is.

HTH,
Christopher