Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 17:58:57

> Iostream may be preferable for purely academic reasons, but for practical

> > reason, "printf"
> > is the api style that is universally adopted.
>
> >> Iostream stry is safe. I have worked on a lot of projects having a lot
> of bug in printf like functions on site. I prefer the compiler give me these
> kind of errors for safety purposes.
>

Its not about what you and i prefer.  Its all about what is the prevailing
standard.   Popular techniques are developed over many years.   Printf is a
popular technique that C++ libraries should continue to support.  No reason
to abandon it.

>> I think that your or your leader are following a wrong reasoning.  You
> can forbid the direct use if you have good reason, but I dont see why forbid
> the use of products that use this Boost library. I don't know which
> libraries you dont want any member of your project to use and why, could you
> tell us more?
>

More than a few boost libraries are considered junk.  I wont name names.  In
any event, it may disconcerting to some to include any of these "junk"
libraries into their project.

As boost lacks a way to remove those projects, some project leads my deceide
to just not use boost at all.

> 4) Many boost libraries seem more like they research projects.  The

> > prevailing
> > view is that boost libraries push the envelope of what is possible.
>
> >> Could you give some examples of research projects?
>

I'm not going to identify individual projects.  But there are many that
could accurately be described as "academic".

>
>
>  > However, many developers question the value of a cutting-edge template
> > library
> > that is full of macros.
>
> >> For most of the cases the use of PP is to emulate variadic templates. So
> this is temporary until all the compilers will support variadic templates.
> Let me say, for 2015.
>

 Good point.

>
> > What is the point of having the source code, when it take an experienced
> > developer many weeks to understand what the library is doing underneath?
> >
> > What is the practical value of a library that can only be maintained
> > by the original developer(s)?
>
> >> I don't think this is true. Any Boost library can be maintained by some
> other than the author.
>

Sorry, not true in practice.  Would be nice if that was true.

> >> I expect to have an idea of what a library is doing by reading its
> documentation, not examining its code. If a library is not enough documented
> we shoudl make requests to the documentation.
>

Most developers know that the only real documentation if the source code.

Tom Brinkman

>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>