Sorry for being a day late...
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
As I do not yet need the functionality of the library but might need it in the future for simple cross platform (Windows and OS X) executing of other existing binaries/child processes (with perhaps adjustment of the arguments passed and of the child process priority) I took a simple glance over the library code (the one in the sandbox) to see whether it 'goes in an acceptable direction':
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
And I immediately found material for my typical rant against a practice too often encountered in many Boost libraries (e.g. a related one http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/10/172390.php): the implementation is inefficient to the point of being plain evil: compiling a for-size optimized MSVC++ 10 x86 release build of the start_child.cpp example (that simply starts a child process) produced a ~100 kB binary...!? "Why on Earth" must one pay for strings, vectors and maps of strings, shared pointers, streams (!?), exceptions and all the other 'goodies' and complex logic only to (after 'getting your head dizzy' by stepping through the code) finally arrive to the CreateProcess() call...? Sorry for the 'rant', I appreciate any effort for public contribution, but my vote, if it still counts, being a day late, is NO... -- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman