Subject: Re: [boost] Any Chances for Boost Stable?
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-21 15:27:43
> Maintaining binary compatability in C++ requires great
> effort and has
> performance implications, so I don't think it's reasonable
> to ask for
The performance implications are quite neligable, similar to
usage of virtual functions, on the other hand, it even
may improve performance because of smaller size of executable...
But this is not the point;
Nobody says keeping ABI is simple, especially when the library
is not designed for it. However, if you do design it correctly,
with all "d-pointers" needed to extend the functionality in
future, it is not so hard.
> Much of boost does tend to be source-compatible between
> versions, though.
Unfortunaly this is not enought.
The problem is that Boost today is what JDK for Java. What would
happen if every sinlge JDK minor release would require developers
to compile version for specific JDK or user have all minor
What would happen to Qt or GTK if they were not keeping their
ABI? Bad things.
So what I call is to look at Boost as we look on Qt/GTKmm/JDK
because it is not less important then other great libraries
that do the right job.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk