Re: [Boost-users] smaller / decoupled `filesystem' module?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] smaller / decoupled `filesystem' module?
From: tom fogal (tfogal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-10 12:17:40

Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anton Daneyko <self_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:27 PM, tom fogal <tfogal_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> > There's an utility called bcp [. . .]

Thanks, I'd heard it mentioned on this list, but it didn't click in
this case.  I'll give it a shot.

> >> This is a minor part of the application we're writing, so I can't
> >> really justify the size.
[snip]
> > My point here that couple of dozens megs of boost code in your
> > repository does not harm anyone. Okay, it's big, but who cares? So
> > what?
[snip]
> Why not pull in the entire Boost then? It certainly wouldn't hurt,
> would it? :)

<g>

You have a good point that the space is not really the issue.  The size
is an (admittedly poor) indicator of other issues which *are* important
though, such as build times.  More code means more maintainence burden
too: if there is a new version of b.fs which fixes a bug we care about,
do we upgrade b.mpl as well?  What if we later have another library
which also depends on b.mpl?  It gets complicated quickly.

-tom