Boost logo

Boost :

From: Nicolas Fleury (nidoizo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-06 13:10:36

David Abrahams wrote:
> IMO someone like you probably *should* vote against it, especially if
> you've taken the time to do reasonable review. At least you have a
> real-world need for FSMs. I just "know" that FSMs are sometimes used
> for lightweight speed-critical components. Or maybe more people
> should be voting for it on the *condition* that an option with fast
> dispatch must be available. I must say, in a world replete with
> high-performance generic components, I agree that "Boost FSM" is too
> broad to cover a library that only does dynamic double-dispatch.

As someone working in the game industry, I can say that right now, even
if we use fully use Boost in our tools, in our engine we use Boost with
parsimony (typically libraries .hpp without .lib; easier to control code
size) and also disable RTTI since the memory overhead is not worth the
cost. A performant state machine mechanism working without RTTI would
be interesting.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at