RE: [boost] Yet another variant-style type, and boost inter-library dependencies

From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-04 20:26:13

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of christopher diggins
> 
> In general I am curious about how other boosters feel about boost
library
> sizes and inter-library couplings. For me this is a big obstacle to
using
> boost in many circumstances. It doesn't seem to be a concern at all
for
> the
> boost community, but I wonder if other programmers have similar
sentiments
> and find themselves often seeking out simpler alternatives.
> 

Hmmm.... 
What you "get" with boost, to me, far outweighs library dependency. If
you decouple TOO much, you end up re-inventing the wheel too many times.

I am currently, for example, writing a Domain Specific Language on top
of boost.lambda. It would not make sense to decouple, nor does the boost
dependency bother me. In some ways this is like saying that since I
never use std::list<> and always use vector<> that I would like to
purchase my compiler without this header.

The std libraries are "standard" and you can publish code with list<> or
vector<> and know it will work on people's compilers. It is in the same
way that I see boost. It is something of a "standard". (though also a
work in progress)

It is not clear to me what the "big obstacle" is? If you are publishing
an article, then say "boost 1.32 required". Maybe I am way off base, but
I just don't see the issue.

" For me this is a big obstacle to using
> boost in many circumstances."

If you could tell us about the circumstances where this is a problem, we
might be able to better see where you are coming from.