AssumptionsOne of the advantages of header-only libraries for C++ is that they do not need to be compiled separately. In C and C++ inline makes sense only if the function is defined in a header file*.Traditionally, in C, .c/.h layout has been used, where the header represents the minimal public interface of the translation unit. Similarly, .cpp/hpp.QuestionAre header-only libraries generally more efficient code- and execution time wise than the traditional layout? If so, is this because of extensive inlining or other optimizations?* - defining the function in a header allows the compiler to see the implementation during compilation of any translation unit and practically makes inlining code possible
Are header-only libraries more efficient?
c++;c;libraries
One of the advantages of header-only libraries for C++ is that they do not need to be compiled separatelyNo, that is not an advantage, quite the opposite - the main part of the library has to be compiled as often as it gets included, not just once. That will typically increase compile times. However, if you are referring to the advantages listed here in Wikipedia: that article is talking about decreased administrative overhead concerning the whole build, packaging and deployment process.In C and C++ inline makes sense only if the function is defined in a header file*This depends on the compiler/linker system, but I guess for most existing C and C++ compilers this is true.Traditionally, in C, .c/.h layout has been used, where the header represents the minimal public interface of the translation unit. Similarly, .cpp/hpp.That is mostly correct. C++ class headers often contain more than the minimal public interface - they typically contain also a lot of private stuff. To mitigate this, things like the PIMPL idiom are used. This is something like the opposite of a header-only library, it tries to minimize the necessary header content. But to answer your main question: this is a trade-off. The more library code one puts into the header files, the more the compiler has a chance for optimizing the code for speed (if this really happens, or if the increasement is noteable, is a completely different question). On the other hand, too much code in headers increases the compile time. Especially in large C++ projects this can become a serious problem, see Large Scale C++ Software Design by John Lakos - though the book is a little bit outdated and some of the problems described in there are addressed by modern compilers, the general ideas/solutions are still valid. In particular, when you are not using a stable (third party) library, but you are developing your own libs during your project, the compile times become apparent. Everytime you change something in the lib, you must change a header file, which will cause a recompile and linkage of all dependent units.IMHO the popularity of header-only libs is caused by the popularity of template meta programming. For most compilers, templated libs must be header-only because the compiler can only start the main compile process when the type parameters are provided, and for full compilation and optimization the compiler must see both at once - the library code plus the template parameter values. That makes it impossible (or at least hard) to produce any precompiled compilation units for such a library.