Re: [boost] [function] The cost of boost::function

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] The cost of boost::function
From: Michael Kochetkov (michael.kv_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-28 16:34:07

> > I have learned that personally I shall never use boost::function. You
> > probably may want to investigate such a code bloat. Though it is
> > probably the known and expected behavior.
> > And I do agree that CCCC is not quite relevant here. Just for
information.
> 
> A bit late but FWIW...
> ...Boost.Function and its 'bloatware' problems are a regular topic on this
list.
> There have been many proposals but near-zero response from the
> mantainer(s).
> I've made a major rewrite that solves most of the problems
> (lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/10/172593.php) so you can try it out
if it
> helps ;)
Thank you for concern. I believe anyone can propose dozens of improvements
of boost critical performance issues. But the main purpose of my
investigation was to determine if boost is ready for commercial usage or it
is still a kind of a playground. I just cannot afford to watch over every
programmer in the company to see if they use boost sensibly. And I do
understand people who write 
boost::function< int (int) > f1 = boost::bind(&g, _1 );
instead of
boost::_bi::bind_t<int,int (*)(int),boost::_bi::list1<boost::arg<1> > > f2 =
boost::bind(&g, _1 );
because it is convenient or they just find it stupid to memorize the second
notation because the life is too short for such things.

So I am stuck with Intel Threading Building Blocks, Flex and so on things
because I cannot explain the director why his old Delphi program is much
faster and much easier for programmers to deal with than the modern C++
stuff.

--
Michael Kochetkov