Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 18:09:54

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase2007_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

>> 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.

Please give concrete examples when Boost should use this printf like style.
>>> 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.

Please name them. This could improve Boost.

> 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.

See bcp.

>> 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".

Whithout concrete examples you don't help Boost.
>> > 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.

Note that I have not said that any one can maintain any Boost.Library.
>> 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.

Not me. I use to use a lot of Boost libraries and I have just read the documentation and see the examples. If I need to read the code to start using a library there is not a problem with the library code but with the documentation. In this case I think that it is better to request clarifications in the doc.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at