Re: [jamboost] Re: Bjam in C++?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-01 01:01:49

David Abrahams wrote:

> >> 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.

By "thin", I mean interface which consists of as few functions as possible.

- Volodya