Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-01 08:39:13
Op 30 mei 2014 om 16:33 heeft "Peter Dimov" <lists_at_[hidden]> het volgende geschreven:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I recommend you return to the question of whether Boost wants to modularize or not.
> The root of the problem is that absence of modularity is (a) invisible, and (b) carries no cost.
> It is invisible because there is no current easy way for developers and users to see a dependency report.
100% agree here.
> It carries no cost because currently Boost developers pay no price at all for introducing a dependency and derive no benefit from severing one. (Realistically, neither do most users.)
Everyone except for the maintainer pays a price for additional
dependencies. Hence everyone except for the maintainer also benefits
from fewer dependencies. This is an issue that has been raised before.
I do agree that having visible dependencies would increase the incentive
for maintainers to reduce those dependencies. Making the dependencies
visible is an intended side effect of part 2 of my plan.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk