At Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:34:56 -0800, Steven Watanabe wrote:
No, I know I can't prove any of this... and frankly I don't think I need to.
Yes you do. Simply throwing out catchwords gets you nowhere in my book.
Here's what I meant: I think most people understand what I'm talking about. There will be a few people who just disagree, or don't get it, or will object for some other reason, and that's OK. I don't need to convince everybody. That said, my assessment could be way off the mark. I've been having this discussion in good faith, trying to make substantive arguments, being careful not to blow smoke, and trying to be fair to all points of view. If that looks to you like "simply throwing out catchphrases," I certainly don't see any point in expending effort trying to convince you.
From what I've seen, this accounts for the vast majority of the arguments in favor of "modularization." Any /real/ benefits have gotten lost in the noise. It's quite possible that there would be advantages. I just don't know what they are.
They've been discussed many times in the past and I'm just out of time to repeat myself at the moment, but we can try to have that conversation again soon. But how will we keep the "noise" (on all sides) down?
Most people understand that decoupling, where practical, is a good idea and that a monolithic Boost has lots of downsides.
Cynical translation: Most people see the word "decoupling" and think good and the word "monolithic" and think "bad" without necessarily having any understanding of what it actually means in context.
I usually try hard to avoid translating the things other people say cynically. It's just not a very useful (or generous) way to listen, especially when the participants ostensibly have the same aims. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com