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,
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk