Re: [boost] [castor] Interest in Logic Paradigm for C++ ?

Subject: Re: [boost] [castor] Interest in Logic Paradigm for C++ ?
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-04 00:10:21

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:05 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roshan" <roshan_naik_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [castor] Interest in Logic Paradigm for C++ ?
>> Often these secondary libraries are too big (mcuh bigger than all of
>> Castor) and in turn depend on other (Boost) libraries. Castor 1.0 is a
>> really small library (under 5k LOC).
>> The simple lambda support in Castor 1.0 totals to about 300 lines of
>> code... compare that to relying on the "all powerful" boost.lambda which
>> is about 14k LOC. Wasn't worth it.
>
> Hi,
>
> this is no the first time some one want to introduce a library in Boost but don't want to use nothing of Boost; even if the abstraction already exist in Boost.
> Whether a library I use is about 1KLOC or 100KLOC it is not important to me, if the service the library provides is what I need.
>
> What kind of users do you want to preserv with a standalone library that will not use your library if it depends on Boost?

I agree, the size of the library matters not to me (as long as it
compiles into very tight assembly, I do not care about compile times
either, I always have other tasks to be doing).  And if you really
want to package it externally, Boost.BCP can easily do that.