Re: [boost] Can you please elaborate on what makes a non-header-only library so very Re: But it would Re: [gil] [announcement] New IO lib

From: Sohail Somani (sohail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-26 18:34:19

Tom Brinkman wrote:
> Sorry about the long subject line.  lol.
> 
> Also, I just took a look at your blog.  Nice.  I've added it to my
> bookmarks of blogs that I read.

Uh oh! You're in for it now!

>>> Why don't you rebuild your dependent libraries along with your code?
>>> Then you are guaranteed to have the right stuff. I mean, you already
>>> said you would like to recompile everything over and over with
>>> header-only stuff. Might as well make it official.
> 
> You make a good valid point.  It guess it really just comes down to
> the "hastle" factor.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

> Managing libraries is just a pain.  I cant tell you how many times
> that I've had to track down stupid things
> related to making sure that all the current libraries are in place for
> the library to compile.
> 
> My experience with header only libraries is much more pleasant.

I have lots of experience building Boost (among others) as a third-party 
dependency and I can tell you that nothing made my life easier than 
building the other libraries alongside my code. After getting things set 
up, nothing made me more upset than having to sit through compiling a 
header yet again.

What it *really* comes down to is whether you have your build structure 
set up in a way so that it is easy to add third-party libraries.

Well-intentioned attempts at making it otherwise aside, C++ is an 
expert's language and requires expertise in many different aspects of 
software engineering.

So the thing to think about is what is it about your build system that 
makes it hard?

-- 
Sohail Somani
http://uint32t.blogspot.com