Re: [boost] Boost libraries after C++0x acceptance

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 17:55:52

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
> 
>> Is that your argument ?
> 
> My argument is really a question:
> 
> Given a library for which there exists a free reference implmentation in 
> terms of
> legal C++ language syntax, what value is gained by adding it to some 
> standard?

It ships with a C++ implementation which correctly works with it and all 
C++ programmers know that if they use that library in their code it must 
work correctly on any other conforming implementation.

I think you are greatly underrating the ability of a C++ programmer 
moving from one C++ implementation to another, as I have from C++ 
Builder to VC++ in personal projects on which I am working, and knowing 
that the standard library usage in the code is guaranteed to work on both.

Now let's assume there is no standard library. Then as a C++ programmers 
switches from one implementation to another, there is no guarantee that 
the code will compile on any given implementation.

Taking 3rd party libraries, with Boost as the example, as good as it is 
    if a compiler vendor does not support a Boost library because that 
compiler vendor has bugs in their implementation or does not support a 
C++ standard language feature which the particular library uses, then an 
attempt to compile code when going from a compiler vendor which does 
support a 3rd party library to one that does not support a 3rd party 
library will fail.

Now let's suppose that 3rd party library is added as a C++ standard 
library. Immediately the compiler vendor which has the bugs or does not 
support a C++ standard language feature needed by that library, and 
wants to be compliant to the C++ standard library, needs to fix their 
problem. This to me is a good thing.