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 <diwa...@maginatics.com>wrote: > 2011/5/4 Bjørn Borud <bbo...@gmail.com>: > > 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 >
