Boost logo

Boost :

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.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk