From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-01 09:26:45
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
Oh :-). I thought you meant an interface which as little "glue" as
possible between Jam and the C++ you want to execute. I can
understand how my meaning would be consistent with high performance,
but not how yours would.
-- 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