Re: (no subject)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-08 17:37:45

Daniela Engert wrote:
> 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.

Compile time improvements by factors is in the users' interest, so this is not
incompatible with what I said.