Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-16 08:19:21

Jody Hagins <jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:21:29 -0600
> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > I think dropping support for some compilers would constitute a major
>> > upgrade, regardless of any new features, functionality, etc.
>> Removing features should never constitute an upgrade.
> Sure it does. We see examples of addition through subtraction in many
> areas of life and engineering.
> Removing the complexity that surrounds support for many old compilers is
> an incredible upgrade, IMO.

IMO there is very little likelihood that officially dropping full
support for a compiler is going to happen on a Boost-wide basis, and
there's even less likelihood that it will be accompanied by a great
simplification in source code for any individual library. Most likely
it will be accompanied by the addition of features that couldn't be
made to work with the compiler. The only time I guess a library will
actually rip out code that supports a compiler is during a total or
near-total rewrite.

> Consider some of the major problems with ACE, and you will quickly see
> that many are due simply to the breadth of support for decreped
> compilers and operating systems.

?? My impression was that the major problems had to do with a lack of
stratification and modularization.

> Dropping compilers that did not support namespaces and other
> rudimentary "features" was a great "upgrade."
> While the breadth of support has helped boost gain wide acceptance, it
> is also the single biggest fault of the library as well.

?? Breadth of support has many benefits and only a few costs, and most
of those fall on the library maintainers. Library users (ahem, like
you) might pay for a slight reduction in velocity, but that's all.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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