From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-29 10:04:26
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > Right. And since in C++ we're not limited in any way, we can do
>> > things efficiently. The only necessary thing is that interface with
>> > Jam be thin, so that we don't loose all performance gain on that
>> > boundary.
>> I don't think that's the only neccessary thing. If the interface is
>> too thin, then you're stuck dealing with unexpressive Jam data
>> structures in C++.
> Why? If interface is thin you can convert Jam data structures into anything
> you like.
Wasn't the whole point of keeping the interface thin to preserve
performance gain? Data conversion is expensive.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk