Re: [boost] But it would Re: [gil] [announcement] New IO lib

From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-26 18:16:53

Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> <JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > I dont know about Tom, but I personally don't want to wast time 
> > building, linking, and then figuring out why the ABI's were not 
> > compatible if it is not necessary.
> 
> 
> So, is the crux of the argument then, that it just takes too 
> much time for you to build boost for your platform(s) when a 
> new version is released or you upgrade compilers?
> 

Unnecessarily spent time is only part of the issue. The other has a lot
to do with configuration. It can be hard to get separately compiled
libraries to play nice together, if one is compiled with different
settings you can get some unexpected behavior or worse.  If the library
is all-headers then it is always compiled the same way as the rest of my
code, and I like that.

Please scroll through this list and check out how many people are
talking about thing like 'problems linking boost on XXXXX'.
-- wait, you wont have to scroll far will you :) Somebody just posted a
new one!

Cheers,
-- John