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

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 19:03:01

Sometimes it feels like Linus has a lot of aliases on these lists ;-)

I especially liked the - partly retracted, admittedly - statement that C++ developers have a lot to learn from the typical C developer, but probably not the other way around. Especially in the light of the typical C++ developer often having been a typical C developer 7 years earlier. And most master C++ developers having been typical C developers 14-22 years ago.

The only point with which I agree is those ugly macros. Yes, I know why we need them, but they are still ugly. BUT, PP is a splendid engineering effort (in retrofitting the C++ preprocessor for tasks it was not meant to handle.)

Boost is the only set of libraries in a "conventional" language that do as I think, which is why it is good :-)

/David

On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> In any event, my point is that c++ exception handeling should be optional.
>> Boost libraries need to be updated to reflect this.
> 
> Look at the design of C++ constructors: the postcondition of a
> constructor is that the object instance is initialized successfully.
> Had Stroustrup listened to people arguing about "optional" exception
> handling, the C++ constructors would have been useless because they
> wouldn't have that postcondition.
> 
> It is the same with any other use of exceptions. Make them optional,
> and you throw away the *only* reason to use them in the first place:
> to enforce postconditions.
> 
> Emil Dotchevski
> Reverge Studios, Inc.
> http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost