5 ms·

It helps with the problem, but doesn't solve it. Just because you have five header files instead of five packages doesn't mean you can use all five headers at

It helps with the problem, but doesn't solve it. Just because you have five header files instead of five packages doesn't mean you can use all five headers at the same time. For example, some might require C++03 and some might need C++14 or newer. Also, if all dependencies are single file with no non-standard dependencies, that means none share dependencies they should, like threading, telemetry, or logging libraries.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
Do you have examples of this or is it just a guess? Anything in its own compilation unit would be isolated. Anything written using C++03 should compile without too much trouble in a more modern compiler. Also threading is part of the C++ standard library. I don't know what you mean by sharing dependencies on telemetry and logging. That sounds like adding questionable complexity to libraries that are simple and modular.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  > Anything in its own compilation unit would be isolated In isolation yes. But if it interacts you get events like the fact that gcc changed std::string between versions (from refcounted to one with small buffer optimisation for C++11 compliance) also introduction of move semantics and rvalue references can change interpretation of the same class declaration between compilers in different modes.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    I have never heard of people upgrading their compiler and/or standard libraries, but expecting to not have to recompile their compilation units. You seem to be talking about major changes to the fundamental set up of a project while not taking a comparably trivial amount of time recompiling compilation units. How often are you changing major compiler versions and breaking standard library versions that you would have this expectation?
    - fnord123 6y ago
      > I have never heard of people upgrading their compiler and/or standard libraries, but expecting to not have to recompile their compilation units. You've never linked to a binary? I have no idea what debian's Qt was build with or libssl or SDL etc were built with but we can link to them all the same. > How often are you changing major compiler versions and breaking standard library versions that you would have this expectation? You don't configure Jenkins to build against multiple compilers/versions of compiler? Isn't that super normal?
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        You are conflating the C ABI with the C++ ABI. The C ABI is stable, so linking to SDL works fine. The C++ ABI is actually relatively stable as far as I can tell, but ABI breaking changes are announced when they are released by compiler vendors.
        fnord123 6y ago
        I am intentionally conflating the C ABI with the C++ ABI because the C++ ABI is only relatively stable so if you want to write software that doesn't require you to rebuild everything each time you update a compiler then you push your code to use more C ABIs rather than more advanced C++isms. This is exactly what SDL has done as the headers are C compatible but it has plenty of C++ in the direct3d parts.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        This was originally about grouping single file header libraries into compilation units that wouldn't need to be changed often. I'm not sure what your point here is, since most would have C functions for their interface or use templates. Even if you were using a C++ ABI it would be trivial to recompile. Qt is the furthest thing from a single file library.
flohofwoe 6y ago
...shared dependencies are more often a problem and not a solution, even when a standard package manager exists (see the deep dependency trees in many Javascript projects where nobody really knows what's actually going on and what code ends up running).

CyberDildonics 6y ago

Do you have examples of this or is it just a guess? Anything in its own compilation unit would be isolated. Anything written using C++03 should compile without too much trouble in a more modern compiler. Also threading is part of the C++ standard library. I don't know what you mean by sharing dependencies on telemetry and logging. That sounds like adding questionable complexity to libraries that are simple and modular.

johannes1234321 6y ago
> Anything in its own compilation unit would be isolated In isolation yes. But if it interacts you get events like the fact that gcc changed std::string between versions (from refcounted to one with small buffer optimisation for C++11 compliance) also introduction of move semantics and rvalue references can change interpretation of the same class declaration between compilers in different modes.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  I have never heard of people upgrading their compiler and/or standard libraries, but expecting to not have to recompile their compilation units. You seem to be talking about major changes to the fundamental set up of a project while not taking a comparably trivial amount of time recompiling compilation units. How often are you changing major compiler versions and breaking standard library versions that you would have this expectation?
  - fnord123 6y ago
    > I have never heard of people upgrading their compiler and/or standard libraries, but expecting to not have to recompile their compilation units. You've never linked to a binary? I have no idea what debian's Qt was build with or libssl or SDL etc were built with but we can link to them all the same. > How often are you changing major compiler versions and breaking standard library versions that you would have this expectation? You don't configure Jenkins to build against multiple compilers/versions of compiler? Isn't that super normal?
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      You are conflating the C ABI with the C++ ABI. The C ABI is stable, so linking to SDL works fine. The C++ ABI is actually relatively stable as far as I can tell, but ABI breaking changes are announced when they are released by compiler vendors.
      - fnord123 6y ago
        I am intentionally conflating the C ABI with the C++ ABI because the C++ ABI is only relatively stable so if you want to write software that doesn't require you to rebuild everything each time you update a compiler then you push your code to use more C ABIs rather than more advanced C++isms. This is exactly what SDL has done as the headers are C compatible but it has plenty of C++ in the direct3d parts.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        This was originally about grouping single file header libraries into compilation units that wouldn't need to be changed often. I'm not sure what your point here is, since most would have C functions for their interface or use templates. Even if you were using a C++ ABI it would be trivial to recompile. Qt is the furthest thing from a single file library.

flohofwoe 6y ago

...shared dependencies are more often a problem and not a solution, even when a standard package manager exists (see the deep dependency trees in many Javascript projects where nobody really knows what's actually going on and what code ends up running).