Re: [boost] Boost packages?

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 Review has since been put out to pasture, and been replaced by the 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.
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> 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! ;-)
>