Re: (no subject)

From: Daniela Engert (dani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-08 17:30:01

Am 08.10.2024 um 18:31 schrieb Peter Dimov via Boost:
> Vinnie Falco wrote:
>> Therefore the more important question becomes: what level of effort should
>> be invested in removing the dependence on obsolete libraries from the non-
>> obsolete Boost libraries which use them?
> The maintainers of each library are supposed to do whatever they consider
> serves their users (the users of the specific library) best.

This is a fair assessment, and certainly one that's fine for many people.

But it's just as fair to take a different perspective: some of the 
earlier Boost libraries are a huge detriment to users who want to see a 
larger emphasis on compiler throughput. The perceived laissez-faire 
stance on that is the reason why e.g. we are actively phasing Boost out 
of our company codebase wherever we can. Literally every one of them 
that got rid of Boost by replacing their libraries with modern 
alternatives from the language, the standard libraries, or more modern 
3rd-party alternatives, saw compilation speed improvements *by factors*. 
This is *after* employing every other imaginable technique on the 
architectural and structural level, be it in C++ itself, tools, and the 
build environment.

Just my humble position as a user.

Dani

-- 
PGP/GPG: 2CCB 3ECB 0954 5CD3 B0DB 6AA0 BA03 56A1 2C4638C5