Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis

Subject: Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-05 08:00:55

Gennaro Prota wrote:

> I'm afraid that if I wanted to really reply to this I'd have to
> question your professional skills. Significantly. Which I don't
> want to do.

There is no need to question them: they are non-existant.
I am not a professional developer, at least I haven't been yet.

> [...]
> 
> Are you aware of what dependencies imply?

If low coupling is maintained, I don't see how having dependencies is 
such a problem.
AFAIK, the interfaces of boost libraries have kept stable once they were 
accepted in release.

Also, I wouldn't consider dependency over something as trivial as a 
tuple to be the same as a dependency over a full-fledged parser library, 
for example.

A tuple is just an enhancement to the language to express your 
algorithms with. Some people even consider C++ with that kind of library 
addition to be a new language altogether, and that is why they use boost.
Maybe all those "trivial" libraries should be grouped into a core 
library. But then the core would probably become way too big.