Jody Hagins <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:21:29 -0600 "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
I think dropping support for some compilers would constitute a major upgrade, regardless of any new features, functionality, etc.
Removing features should never constitute an upgrade.
Sure it does. We see examples of addition through subtraction in many areas of life and engineering.
Removing the complexity that surrounds support for many old compilers is an incredible upgrade, IMO.
IMO there is very little likelihood that officially dropping full support for a compiler is going to happen on a Boost-wide basis, and there's even less likelihood that it will be accompanied by a great simplification in source code for any individual library. Most likely it will be accompanied by the addition of features that couldn't be made to work with the compiler. The only time I guess a library will actually rip out code that supports a compiler is during a total or near-total rewrite.
Consider some of the major problems with ACE, and you will quickly see that many are due simply to the breadth of support for decreped compilers and operating systems.
?? My impression was that the major problems had to do with a lack of stratification and modularization.
Dropping compilers that did not support namespaces and other rudimentary "features" was a great "upgrade."
While the breadth of support has helped boost gain wide acceptance, it is also the single biggest fault of the library as well.
?? Breadth of support has many benefits and only a few costs, and most of those fall on the library maintainers. Library users (ahem, like you) might pay for a slight reduction in velocity, but that's all. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com