4 ms·

BTW, contrary to popular believe in certain C++ circles 'header-only' isn't a hallmark of good design. Header-only means implementation-only programming without

BTW, contrary to popular believe in certain C++ circles 'header-only' isn't a hallmark of good design. Header-only means implementation-only programming without separation of interface and implementation (the implementation is the interface) using the built-in macro language called templates. Not surprisingly, this style of C++ programming has been successful in academic rather than real-world programming.

pjmlp 12y ago
It is a consequence of how templates work and compatibility with C toolchain as a way to get C++ adopted in the early days. As such you also get into header only libraries for anything template related in the real-world programming. Maybe if C++17 does get modules, eventually header-only and pimpl might be a thing of legacy code only. However even if it does happen, it depends on the final design of modules and developers willing to wait around 4 more years for it[0], instead of switching to something else. [0] No typo, time for approval plus compiler adoption
- ExpiredLink 12y ago
  > t is a consequence of how templates work and compatibility with C toolchain as a way to get C++ adopted in the early days. Not at all! It's a programming style, nothing else. Compare this "Header-only library to expose C++ classes and functions into V8" to the real V8. The latter doesn't use 'header-only', template-only C++. Why? Because Google cannot do it? No, because it makes no sense for real-world programming.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I didn't bother to read the contents of the library and was just stating the fact that in the real world header only libraries are usually a consequence of heavy template use, e.g. boost.
pmed 12y ago
Header-only often is just a consequence of templates using. There is no other way in C++ yet. Sure, you can use v8 (as described in its Embedder's Guide) without any binding library. But amount of boilerplate code may become unacceptable for a real-world application. Here is a diff for Node.js addons using node wrapper and v8pp: https://github.com/pmed/v8pp/commit/34c6344bdb1bdf7f0b46db6ea15c8ddd20ac3824 https://github.com/pmed/v8pp/commit/34c6344bdb1bdf7f0b46db6e...

pjmlp 12y ago

It is a consequence of how templates work and compatibility with C toolchain as a way to get C++ adopted in the early days. As such you also get into header only libraries for anything template related in the real-world programming. Maybe if C++17 does get modules, eventually header-only and pimpl might be a thing of legacy code only. However even if it does happen, it depends on the final design of modules and developers willing to wait around 4 more years for it[0], instead of switching to something else. [0] No typo, time for approval plus compiler adoption

ExpiredLink 12y ago
> t is a consequence of how templates work and compatibility with C toolchain as a way to get C++ adopted in the early days. Not at all! It's a programming style, nothing else. Compare this "Header-only library to expose C++ classes and functions into V8" to the real V8. The latter doesn't use 'header-only', template-only C++. Why? Because Google cannot do it? No, because it makes no sense for real-world programming.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  I didn't bother to read the contents of the library and was just stating the fact that in the real world header only libraries are usually a consequence of heavy template use, e.g. boost.

pmed 12y ago

Header-only often is just a consequence of templates using. There is no other way in C++ yet. Sure, you can use v8 (as described in its Embedder's Guide) without any binding library. But amount of boilerplate code may become unacceptable for a real-world application. Here is a diff for Node.js addons using node wrapper and v8pp: https://github.com/pmed/v8pp/commit/34c6344bdb1bdf7f0b46db6ea15c8ddd20ac3824 https://github.com/pmed/v8pp/commit/34c6344bdb1bdf7f0b46db6e...