Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimentallibraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimentallibraries
From: Raindog (raindog_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-25 00:06:47

Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
> OvermindDL1 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> --Jeffrey Bosboom
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
I think what has to be done is that boost needs to be able to be seen as 
the STL/MFC/ATL/etc by its potential users. If you look at the 
complexity of the libraries shipped w/ visual studio, I think you might 
see similar complexities as to what boost has, the difference is that 
the user has to do absolutely nothing but install visual studio to gain 
access to everything. Linux distros have similar painless installations 
of C++ standard libraries too.

I'll give an example of how things shouldn't be. I consider myself a 
pretty advanced windows user, I have a couple of scripts and a standard 
setup for configuring boost the way I want on windows. However, when I 
moved to linux (where i have 0 experience) I tried to set up the same 
configurations for boost there, however, whenever I built the debug 
version of the library and installed it, it overwrote the optimized 
versions. So I gave up pretty quickly and moved on to other more 
important things.