From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-30 12:25:10
Goran Mitrovic <gmit_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
>> We really need a section at the top of the page titled "What is Boost?"
>> that covers something like the following:
>> * Boost is a collection of C++ libraries
>> - Free for any use
>> - Extensively peer-reviewed
>> - Extensively Tested
> Would it be fair to also mention drawbacks of boost?
No, I don't think so. What other projects do something similar?
> I can currently think of two of them: pretty large impact on
You're kidding; using shared_ptr slows down your compiles??
> and, in the case of rare bugs or misunderstandings how things work,
> it's sometimes/often/mostly (some poll could pick a realistic
> adjective) hard to peep in sources and see what's wrong - there are
> sometimes too many layers (which is good from some perspectives),
> too much usage of preprocessor (impressive design, but, the code is
> completely unreadable, especially to beginners) and too much
> compiler workarounds (they are good because you can compile, but
> they uglify the code, without a doubt).
That's four or five, not two. And whether those things represent
disadvantages are a matter of opinion. If we didn't use the
preprocessor, etc., Boost would be bigger, less portable, and harder
> As a suggestion, would it be possible to make a section in which it
> is described, at least subjectively and somewhat imprecise, an
> impact of each library on compiling-time.
No, I don't think so. That information is highly compiler- and
usage-dependent and I doubt we could do a reasonably good job. And it
will spark all kinds of arguments. That would be a mess.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk