Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library

Subject: Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-19 20:09:26

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> How would it be extremely useful?
>>> Permit me to answer that.
>>> a) First of all - it is ALOT less time to build and test only the
>>> libraries
>>> that one actually uses rather than the whole set.
>>
>> Less time than downloading the (entire) pre-built Boost distribution,
>> that's already been tested?
>>
>
> It sounds as if you never attempted to use boost in a professional product
> that needs full-scale testing or even certification.
>
> There is much more to QA than running unit tests.

My background is in games. Our testing procedures wouldn't change
based on whether any library we use was downloaded in its entirety or
not. We test the product as a whole, not its components.

(Regardless, I'm reasonably certain that Robert meant testing the
Boost libraries, not a particular product that uses them, since we've
discussed this before.)

>> I consider myself a prime example of someone using only a few Boost
>> libraries. Still, the easiest and most reliable strategy for me is to
>> download the entire Boost.
>
> Right. Isn't that sad ?

The question is, is there an alternative approach?

> (And I won't even start to rant about ABI / API
> backward-compatible ('minor') releases again, as this topic has been beaten
> almost to death numerous times in the past. How more easier that would be
> with a more modular approach...)

Right, describe this modular approach in more detail. What is your
definition of a module?

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode