Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...

Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 17:32:50

On 10/31/2013 10:14 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> I would agree with calling that small, but no further work on
>> modularization is likely to be done. I'm not willing to do any such
>> horizontal work after the move to git, so someone else would have to
>> step up to do it.
> I think it was unfortunate that the git transition has got mixed up 
> with modularisation. The two are quite different, but together they 
> create a lot more change (and breakage) than either alone would.

I agree 100%.

If you choose a big bang you have to expect explosions :).

>>> how many of them pull in a dependency only to 
>>> never use it or use it very lightly?
>> I never counted, but 'at least some and maybe several'. Where I
>> arbitrarily define some < several by an order of magnitude of 3 or so :).
>>
>>>  How many pull in dependencies 
>>> which can now be replaced with C++11 standard libraries instead? That 
>>> sort of thing.
>> Probably less than 'some' above. I realise that that's meaningless
>> without some quantified baseline :).
> Useful to know, and you know more here than most, even if it is just 
> the shape of what is unknown. I suspect a libclang AST grokker could 
> tell us the detailed truth here, but that's a lot of work to 
> implement.

It would be less work and more understandable to just do the work. This
is not a tools problem :).

> I would say that removing libraries is an excellent way of 
> discovering trivial dependencies, and increasing modularisation 
> [cackle!].

Just trying to do so is also an excellent way to do that too. I'm glad
my report produced some of that grade of modularization work.

Thanks,

Steve.