C++ header-only libraries are bad

A somewhat more recent trend in the C++ community is the popularity of header-only single-file libraries. Prominent examples are catch2, JSON for Modern C++ and spdlog. These are all great, modern and popular libraries, and I personally enjoy using all of them.

But back to the provoking title. This may be a bit of an over-generalization, and it is meant to be a little bit ambiguous. Mathieu Ropert already pointed out that header-only files are but a symptom of the whole C++ modules and package misery. The aforementioned libraries are all great pieces of software but it is bad that:

  • they are exclusively header-only
  • header-only is seen as a sign of quality these days

Historically, header-only libraries have been a thing in C++ because of templates. Templates are not functions or variables that can be referenced by the linker. No, as the name so fittingly suggests, they are just templates for those, with the potential to become, or better, be instantiated into, something that actually survives the trip to the executable code. Header-only libraries used to be code that could only materialized in the context of other code.

But the focus has shifted to portability. I guess by coincidence, people discovered that header-only libraries are also relatively easy to import into your project.

It is actually about inlining

Splitting code between headers and implementation files is a trade off, one that is often synonymous with marking functions inline or not. Inlining is just one more fine-tuning tool that C++ programmers have at their disposal to make the resulting application behave as they want. Carefully considering whether to inline helps to manage compile times, transitive dependencies and code-bloat.

Even for template-heavy libraries, not all of it has to to be inlined. It is often beneficial for compilation-time, code-size and run-time to use techniques such as thin templates to make sure some of the code is properly insulated.

Another way?

Promoting “header-only” as the new buzzword for portability has the side-effect of implying which code is not marked as inline: None.

That is just ignorant of that dimension of the code. It is equivalent to not making a choice about insulation and inlining.

Sure, header-only is marginally better for dropping into your code, but adding a portable implementation file should be just as easy. Why not deliver portable libraries as a single implementation file and a single header instead? Those could easily be generated by a preprocessing step E.g. catch2’s single-header is generated anyways, so it should not be much harder to split that output into two files. Of course the implementation file should be able to work within your compilation environment. But the same restrictions apply to the single-header file, so there’s really no additional difficulty. And it is really easy to go from the two-file version to the single file by just marking everything in the implementation file as inline and including it in the header.

9 thoughts on “C++ header-only libraries are bad

  1. Unfortunately you are completely mistaken. Inline only sidesteps ODR violation and has nothing to do in C++ with actual compiler inlining, which is often much more aggressive leading to better optimization. If your system has LTO link time optimization you are even less prone to code duplication. A last effect of templates is that only that code gets instantiated that is actually used.

    • I know what the inline keyword does. That’s why I often wrote “marked as inline”. Not sure what your criticism is really. Can you elaborate why I’m mistaken?

  2. Pingback: 1 – C++ header-only libraries are bad

    • Oh those are not header-only but “single-file” libs – it’s even what their github says! While I’d rather have those libs as separate implementation and header files – this is basically that, but with a define to switch between the two. C++ header-only libs, on the other hand, just throw everything at the linker-stage by declaring everything as inline. stb does not do that.

  3. No, header only libraries aren’t bad. They aren’t good either, it’s just that they are the only really portable way to write reusable code in C++.

    • Nah, I think that is exactly the misconception that has to go. E.g. pugixml is is super portable even though it has a cpp file.

    • Yes, it’s easier to just throw everything at the compiler/linker, but it’s not as hard as people think. Using thin-template requires some planning, yes – but applying type-erasure is usually pretty easy. Like using std::function instead of a template parameter for a callback.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s