Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimentallibraries
From: Jeffrey Bosboom (jbosboom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-24 23:23:00
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Christian Schladetsch wrote:
>>> +1 for making it harder to add a new library to boost.
>>> There are already too many libraries.
>> -1 for making it even harder to add a new library to boost.
>> Boost and C++ doesn't have anywhere near enough libraries.
> -1 too.
> Other languages are more popular just *because* they have libraries
> that do everything, we need such things in C++ too, with the speed
> that C++ provides us. You can never have too many libraries, as long
> as they are well documented and categorized.
I believe Christian's response may have more to do with Boost's
monolithic nature. It isn't currently possible to say "I need
shared_ptr and Boost.Unordered and any necessary dependencies" -- the
user must install all of Boost, which is daunting if not as difficult as
it first seems. This goes against the C++ philosophy of "you only pay
for what you use". This problem will only get worse as Boost
accumulates more libraries.
I also want more libraries (so here's my -1), and I've used Java largely
on the strength of its standard library (especially Swing). In fact, I
want them even if it makes Boost large and unwieldy. But I think making
Boost modular would do a great deal to assuage the fears of those who
would rather be more selective.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk