Migration to C++ (?)
edu at thorsten-wissmann.de
Tue Jul 22 10:44:07 CEST 2014
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> > So, you would also say, that using the C++STL is a bad idea, since it is
> > a huge library. The same is true for the libc or for glib. So where do
> > you see the difference.
> No, this isn't same. Why? The libc, glib, etc. is used many-many
> program so it's installed on many systems. If you want install hlwm,
> you've installed some GUI programs (if not, why do you need window
> manager? :) ). It's almost impossible to skip glib, so you've
> installed glib. But boost libs needed by only some programs, not
> almost all. On my system boost is needed by only Libreoffice. If I
> haven't Libreoffice, I don't need boost.
> Boost isn't widely used lib as gtk, glib or similar. So this is
> the reason why I think *hlwm* shouldn't use boost.
I don't share the opinion that the choosing of libraries depends so much
on what the others choose. More important for me is:
1. Does the library help me by doing the work for me? (in particular:
does it help me creating a stable user-experience?)
2. Is the library itself stable & reliable?
3. Can it be installed easily be users?
And both boost and STL and glib fulfill the third criterion. But I think
STL fulfills the first much better than glib. I just don't see any
advantage of boost over STL, and that is *the only reason* I wouldn't
switch to boost.
Just like Chris showed, in that tiny dimensions of size (no matter if
huge, bloat or whatever you measure), I don't care about binary filesize
or number of installed packages or hard disk usage...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the hlwm