[boost] Re: Re: Re: TR2 and C++0x heads up

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 08:52:07

>> IMO the more flexible the solution is - the more users it will end up 
>> attracting.
>
> I don't agree with this statement at all. Making things more flexible
> incures a semantic dilution

Sorry . I do not get this.

> (not to speak of the added complexity
> necessary to support that flexibility)

More flexible solution is not nesseserility more complex. It's maybe just 
better designed with flexibility in mind. Actually I believe that in general 
Policy based designs tend to lead to more simple solution, since they 
clearly separate independent notions and each one of them is quite easy to 
implement separately. It does require good original component design though.

> that encourages users to just 'roll their own' solution.

Why? And having inflexible solution doesn't? Did you notice how many times 
in his list people comes up with threads like: lets have another smart 
pointer (guard, manager e.t.c.) like this ....?

> I'm not saying that flexibility or genericity is bad. But it comes
> with a price.

What kind of price? Perforamce, usability, space?

> Regards,
> Stefan

Gennadiy