Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis

Subject: Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-04 09:22:23

Gennaro Prota wrote:

> Boost ("most expertly designed in the world", etc.)

It's a quote from someone which is quite known, it's not like it is 
being stated as being the truth.
It's a bit catchy, still, but is nowhere near as bad as the Apple 
advertisements, for example.

> The "new"
> lexical_cast is a close friend, and there are simply authors who
> don't know where the house of simplicity is (looking at the
> source code of one of the tools I found boost::tuple used
> --which in turn meant type_traits, which in turn meant mpl,
> lambda and God knows what-- when std::pair would just do). I
> could continue for hours, really (but please don't ask). 

Is it that important than some libraries depend on basic building 
blocks, even when they could use less flexible building blocks with a 
simpler implementation?
A pair is simply the tuple of the poor.

Are you concerned with the time to compile the thing, or simply with 
dependencies?

> At the
> end of the day, nobody is going to complain to anyone, because
> everything is "volunteer contribution". That may be humanly
> understandable, but don't expect to have quality in this kind of
> ecosystem ("patches are welcome", "if you notice anything wrong
> you can fix it" are easy escapes: you don't produce solid
> software by trial and error, nor you can really fight the
> mentality of an overwhelming majority).

What do you think the review system is for?