Re: [boost] [website] Proposal for new page - Libraries By Type

From: Beth Jacobson (bethj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-16 15:10:24

Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> What's wrong with "libraries by category" part of
> 
>    http://www.boost.org/libs/libraries.htm
> 
> in the first place?!
> 

Nothing. This would be in addition to, not in place of.

> 
> Quick set of comments:
> ======================
> 
> Library names should start with an uppercase character because of
> 
>     http://www.boost.org/more/discussion_policy.htm#lib_names

Ok.

> 
> "C++ Tweak" doesn't quite cut it right for all what's listed in this section, I think.

Suggestions are welcome. I was looking for something that would 
communicate the idea of 'improvements to the language'. The group should 
contain libraries that most people will want to use most of the time.

> BTW. is 'lexical_cast' really part of 'conversion'? 

It's part of that library, but it would probably be better to list it as 
a replacement for atoi, atol, etc.

> I can't make any sense of the description saying "Enums" for 'variant', did you perhaps actually want to write "Unions"?
> 

I did.

> It's strange that the meaning of the columns seems to swap after the first two entries (for "C++ tweaks" and "Simple utilities") and the authors' names should be listed for either all or for none of the entries. 

In the final version, they would all be like the first two. The rest 
just aren't written yet.

> 
> What separates a "simple utility" from an "advanced utility"? Currently this separation seems tainted with a subjective guess of what might be inside.

My idea was to group them according to their appeal to different 
audiences, depending on the type of programming they do and how much of 
an investment they want to make in implementing something.

> To just pick a few examples: 'enable_if' is (nearly) a one-liner while 'multi-index' is a complex library, 'call_traits' is quite simple compared to 'regex', and 'functional' and 'functional/hash' ending up in different categories seems quite odd to me too.
> 
> Further I can't really see what's "bleeding edge" about 'range' or 'in_place_factory'.

Some are misclassified. It might also be better to have a General 
Utilities section for things that are heavier than Simple Utilities, but 
   are more applicable to traditional methodologies than Advanced Utilities.

> 
> "Misc" should probably read "Portability".

Sounds good. "Misc" isn't a useful name anyway.

> - 'config': I'd just strike that "not intended for library users" sentence. 
>   Boost.Config gives a fine set of tools to write very portable code - it can be
>   attractive to end-users as well.
> - 'compatibility' -- I'd probably use the word "normalize" in the description

I used the existing descriptions for both. Part of the idea of this page 
is to replace them with more helpful ones.

> Hope it's of any help,

It is. Thanks.