Daniela Engert wrote:
Am 08.10.2024 um 18:31 schrieb Peter Dimov via Boost:
Vinnie Falco wrote:
Therefore the more important question becomes: what level of effort should be invested in removing the dependence on obsolete libraries from the non- obsolete Boost libraries which use them?
The maintainers of each library are supposed to do whatever they consider serves their users (the users of the specific library) best.
This is a fair assessment, and certainly one that's fine for many people.
But it's just as fair to take a different perspective: some of the earlier Boost libraries are a huge detriment to users who want to see a larger emphasis on compiler throughput. The perceived laissez-faire stance on that is the reason why e.g. we are actively phasing Boost out of our company codebase wherever we can. Literally every one of them that got rid of Boost by replacing their libraries with modern alternatives from the language, the standard libraries, or more modern 3rd-party alternatives, saw compilation speed improvements *by factors*. This is *after* employing every other imaginable technique on the architectural and structural level, be it in C++ itself, tools, and the build environment.
Compile time improvements by factors is in the users' interest, so this is not incompatible with what I said.