Date: 2020-12-07 10:15:45
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Gavin Lambert via Boost
> Sent: 6 December 2020 21:56
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Gavin Lambert <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3
> On 3/12/2020 10:03 am, Brian Wood wrote:
> > Peter Dimov writes:
> >> And in general, expecting ABI stability from a collection of
> >> predominantly header-only libraries is setting one up for severe disappointment.
> > The standardized libraries are more header-only than Boost so am not
> > sure how this isn't a rap on them also. Somehow C++ has become
> > successful in spite of this.
> C++ prioritises performance, at the price of handing you a great many
> footguns with which to shoot yourself if not handled carefully.
> A great many developers are willing to make that particular tradeoff.
Developers should also factor-in and plan and budget ahead for a completely separate process of
rebuilding and retesting and redocumenting each time a new revision is felt necessary. This might
not be every Boost release, nor every compiler release.
This will cost manpower, hardware and management, but the ultimate benefit is better quality and
I find it extraordinary that anyone with an aspiration for quality is content with using obsolete
bug-ridden compilers a decade old.
Is this one reason why so much software 'sucks'?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk