Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 20:47:13

On Jun 8, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Bergman

[snip]

>> I am not even super-happy about quite specific math libraries  
>> entering Boost
>> now and then - ending up with a bunch of them.
>
> The question is, do we or do we not allow domain-specific libraries in
> Boost? I think that it is obvious that we do, there are quite a few of
> them.

Yeah? I think you have the wrong idea about Boost - have you used  
Boost a lot, and in that case, what libraries?

The bulk are generic language-lifting tools, basically giving the  
programmer a greater vocabulary. And, even if I bashed math libraries  
a bit, I would classify the current (as of 1.39.0) libraries as (and I  
did go through each library, and might have counted wrong with a few  
units here and there):

1. Language Extensions - 60   (including Statechart and BGL, which are  
applicable much more often than the developer realizes)

2. Common Types & Features (often part of newer languages standard  
libraries) - 8   (Accumulate, Numeric Conversion, Date, Format,  
Random, Regex, Serialization, Xpressive)

3. OS Abstraction Layer  - 8   (Filesystem, Asio, Interprocess,  
Iostreams, Pool, System, Thread, Timer)

4. Math - 8  (Interval, various Math libraries, Rational)

5. Other Specialized - 7   (CRC, GIL, MPI, Proto, Python, Spirit,  
uBLAS, Units)

The first two categories can be characterized as bringing the language  
of C++ up to (and beyond) that of newer creations, where the third  
category is often part of such a standard library. The number of  
libraries belonging to those three categories is 76.

The latter two categories are clearly domain-specific, though. The  
number of such libraries is 15.

If you disagree with these figures, I welcome a revised table,  
otherwise we can clearly state that domain- and target-*agnostic*  
libraries constitute the bulk of Boost, by far.

> We could say "OK, no more domain-specific libraries in
> Boost!!!~!~1`~!!~111" but first we must formally define the domain of
> libraries that are acceptable in Boost. Good luck with that. :)

First of all, I do not understand why we would have to use profanity  
in stating that, but alright, I would definitely welcome such a  
decision, and it is quite easy; just see the table above. I would  
welcome exclusion of those 15 domain-specific libraries...

/David