Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 17:32:50
On 10/31/2013 10:14 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> I would agree with calling that small, but no further work on
>> modularization is likely to be done. I'm not willing to do any such
>> horizontal work after the move to git, so someone else would have to
>> step up to do it.
> I think it was unfortunate that the git transition has got mixed up
> with modularisation. The two are quite different, but together they
> create a lot more change (and breakage) than either alone would.
I agree 100%.
If you choose a big bang you have to expect explosions :).
>>> how many of them pull in a dependency only to
>>> never use it or use it very lightly?
>> I never counted, but 'at least some and maybe several'. Where I
>> arbitrarily define some < several by an order of magnitude of 3 or so :).
>>
>>> How many pull in dependencies
>>> which can now be replaced with C++11 standard libraries instead? That
>>> sort of thing.
>> Probably less than 'some' above. I realise that that's meaningless
>> without some quantified baseline :).
> Useful to know, and you know more here than most, even if it is just
> the shape of what is unknown. I suspect a libclang AST grokker could
> tell us the detailed truth here, but that's a lot of work to
> implement.
It would be less work and more understandable to just do the work. This
is not a tools problem :).
> I would say that removing libraries is an excellent way of
> discovering trivial dependencies, and increasing modularisation
> [cackle!].
Just trying to do so is also an excellent way to do that too. I'm glad
my report produced some of that grade of modularization work.
Thanks,
Steve.