From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 06:52:53
Daryle Walker wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 2:21 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> I say that the primary motivation to customize memory management
>> details is that the default memory manager is slow.
> Just because you dislike the (so-called-by-you) primary motivation,
> you want to ban all other motivations?
Motivations cannot be banned. The point is that the correct way to deal with
the primary motivation is to pressure implementors until it mostly goes
away. Adding a way for users to circumvent the default allocator takes off
pressure from implementors. There is an inherent conflict here. Obviously a
portion of the community has a valid need to replace the default allocator.
What is not obvious is that the rest of the community loses in the end.
Throughout this thread I have tried to highlight the non-obvious part. This
does not mean that I can't see the obvious.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk