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