From: Paul Hickey (paul.hickey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-24 06:42:50
Excuse the super long delay in posting this, I did try a couple of weeks
back but failed to register first.
Paul Hickey wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Mon Apr 02 2007, Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz-AT-chello.at> wrote:
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> No, boost is not even one library much less a monolithic one. Boost
>>>> is a library collection. I've seen the dependencies among the Boost
>>>> libraries graphed, and unlike some other development frameworks,
>>>> which just show up as a big blob, Boost is neatly partitioned and the
>>>> dependencies tend to be a unidirectional DAG.
>>> Really? I very much would like to see this graph.
>> It was in a preview of code structure analysis software from this
>> company: http://headwaysoft.com/index.php. They were interested in
>> making an analysis of Boost publicly (I think) available online. I've
>> Bcc'd my friend there; if he wants to pipe up, he will (Paul, you have
>> to register if you want to post on this mailing list).
> Just back from vacation so excuse the slow response.
>>> If this is available somewhere I think it would be nice to show it
>>> somewhere on the web!
> Dave was referring to a product we used to sell called Headway Review,
> which had reasonable GCC C++ support and poor VS C++ support. Headway
> Review has since been put out to pasture, and been replaced by the
> leaner, meaner, cleaner Structure101.
> Support for C++ for Structure101 is long overdue, but hopefully will
> see light of day before the end of the year. More anon.
> Given the lessons we learnt from Headway Review in general and Headway
> Review for C++ in particular, when Structure101 for C++ does finally
> see the light of day, I am confident the folks in the Boost community
> will be interested. ;-)
>> Agreed, for real.
>>> Besides being a nice eye-candy it would
>>> support those in need for these kind of arguments.
>>> I would have volunteered in providing this graph, but unfortunately
>>> I must have been doing something completely wrong when I was trying
>>> to generate such a graph on my own. It reminded me very much of the
>>> wool ball my cat likes to play with than a well structured graph. :-(
> If you really want to do this now, I'd be happy to provide an
> unsupported copy of Review so you can get some sense of where you stand.
> Contact me directly if you do.
>> Well, at the time, Headway's software really did show a remarkable
>> difference between Boost and ACE in that respect.
> Thats for sure! ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk