The Thrift compiler also does not use boost.
On 05/05/2011 10:35 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Your point about portability is valid, AFAICT, protobufs doesn't use boost. > > That makes compilation massively less painful on windows and mac. > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Diwaker Gupta <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2011/5/4 Bjørn Borud <[email protected]>: >>> there is another issue that few people touch on when comparing the >>> two, but which is important in practice: the Thrift compiler is not >>> very portable, in the sense that it can quite obviously be built on >>> different operating systems, but you can only expect it to build >>> painlessly on Linux. which sort of nullifies some of its usefulness >>> if you want to use it as a cross platform tool. >> >> Well this isn't really a point of comparison since the protobuf >> compiler is also in C++ and equally "less portable". Further, while I >> agree that it is important for the libraries to be cross-platform, I >> imagine most users being OK with the compiler available on one or two >> platforms. Finally, I know for a fact that the Thrift compiler can be >> compiled on Mac and Windows (with some effort) so there's proof of >> existence. Things can certainly be improved though. >> >> Diwaker >> >
