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

Subject: Re: [boost] [castor] Interest in Logic Paradigm for C++ ?
From: Roshan (roshan_naik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-04 13:32:12

On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:10:21 -0600, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]>  
wrote:

> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:05 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>  
> wrote:
>> 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

As a library author, I deeply care when imposing such requirements on  
users. There was an earlier post of an existing user who expressed the  
desire to have it standalone.  
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--castor--Interest-in-Logic-Paradigm-for-C%2B%2B---p28412673.html

Concern that Boost has become a giant hair ball of intertwined libraries  
is not limited to a few people. Bjarne mentioned this as the reason for  
not introducing Boost libraries to his students during a casual  
conversation at a conference. Introducing a massive library collection  
(for the sake of a tiny library) into a sophisticated source control/build  
environments of large corporations is a big deal. I am OK with introducing  
such coupling between libraries provided the benefits outweigh the costs  
to consumers of the library.

I looked at Phoenix briefly. The headers in the core directory is about 1k  
LOC ... but it seems to depend (at least) on mpl... which is a giant.  
Another problem is, once you depend on one library, there is no control on  
how many dependencies that library itself will drag in (which can change  
with every release). Too risky.

- Roshan