From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-30 01:18:51
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
Yes. If interface is thin you can convert Jam data structures into
anything you like *without loosing too much performance*. If the interface is
fat, on the other hand, you need to either convert data everywhere, or stick
to Jam data structures. First approach is slow, and the second one is messy.
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