From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 10:22:01
Martin Bonner wrote:
>> And if so, why does Boost push so hard for a
>> header-only implementation of its libraries? Isn't it a contradiction?
> There is a difference between Boost (which is hard to install - though
> getting easier), and a C++ implementation (which usually is pretty
> straightforward to install on it's target platforms).
I happen to find Boost installation very easy. I just type "bjam
-sTOOLS=vc... stage" and it works. But even if it was difficult, many
std implementations are also shipped as header-only, or mainly
header-only, although they are easy to install. And everybody seems to
think this is a Good Thing. It looks to me as if the industry has
settled on the approach of "don't bother me with stuff like ABI
compatibility. Re-compile your code and get on with it". At least that's
the impression I got, correct me if I'm wrong...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk