Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization

Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-29 02:22:45

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM,  <joaquin <at> tid.es> wrote:
>> >
>> > Why there's pressure from users to keep Boost libs header-only? Boost is
>> > for the users, so their reasons should be given proper weight.
>>
>> One can not create good design (in general, not just in software) by
>> asking the users what would they like.
>
> I'd rather not go into discussing such far-reaching issues
> as design theory, but you haven't asked my question:
> What are the particular reasons why users demand header-only
> libraries?

Probably different users have different reasons. One reason might be
that it makes Boost easier to install initially. What's your point?

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