From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-30 11:19:02
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "thin", then.
-- 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