Martin Bonner wrote:
And if so, why does Boost push so hard for a header-only implementation of its libraries? Isn't it a contradiction?
There is a difference between Boost (which is hard to install - though getting easier), and a C++ implementation (which usually is pretty straightforward to install on it's target platforms).
I happen to find Boost installation very easy. I just type "bjam -sTOOLS=vc... stage" and it works. But even if it was difficult, many std implementations are also shipped as header-only, or mainly header-only, although they are easy to install. And everybody seems to think this is a Good Thing. It looks to me as if the industry has settled on the approach of "don't bother me with stuff like ABI compatibility. Re-compile your code and get on with it". At least that's the impression I got, correct me if I'm wrong...