Re: Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3

Boost - Dev mailing list
Peter Dimov writes:

> Marshall Clow wrote:
>
> > I must concur with Ville here; I have had several people tell me they
> won?t
> > use Boost because ?it changes with every release?.
>
> Boost does change with every release, and I still keep using 1.38 in
> several
> projects of mine, but these changes are not limited to ABI at all.
> Everything changes, you have to retest the whole lot, for correctness as
> well as performance.
>
> And in general, expecting ABI stability from a collection of predominantly
> header-only libraries is setting one up for severe disappointment.
>
> The standardized libraries are more header-only than Boost so am
not sure how this isn't a rap on them also.  Somehow C++ has become
successful in spite of this.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 3/12/2020 10:03 am, Brian Wood wrote:
> Peter Dimov writes:
>> And in general, expecting ABI stability from a collection of predominantly
>> header-only libraries is setting one up for severe disappointment.
>>
> The standardized libraries are more header-only than Boost so am
> not sure how this isn't a rap on them also.  Somehow C++ has become
> successful in spite of this.

C++ prioritises performance, at the price of handing you a great many
footguns with which to shoot yourself if not handled carefully.

A great many developers are willing to make that particular tradeoff.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3

Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gavin Lambert via Boost
> Sent: 6 December 2020 21:56
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Gavin Lambert <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3
>
> On 3/12/2020 10:03 am, Brian Wood wrote:
> > Peter Dimov writes:
> >> And in general, expecting ABI stability from a collection of
> >> predominantly header-only libraries is setting one up for severe disappointment.
> >>
> > The standardized libraries are more header-only than Boost so am not
> > sure how this isn't a rap on them also.  Somehow C++ has become
> > successful in spite of this.
>
> C++ prioritises performance, at the price of handing you a great many
> footguns with which to shoot yourself if not handled carefully.
>
> A great many developers are willing to make that particular tradeoff.

Developers should also factor-in and plan and budget ahead for a completely separate process of
rebuilding and retesting and redocumenting each time a new revision is felt necessary.  This might
not be every Boost release, nor every compiler release.

This will cost manpower, hardware and management, but the ultimate benefit is better quality and
better performance.

I find it extraordinary that anyone with an aspiration for quality is content with using obsolete
bug-ridden compilers a decade old.

Is this one reason why so much software 'sucks'?

Paul




 


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost