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 19:21:47

Those of us that started out learning C++ before ever learning C, have had
to do lots of backfilling.

By learning C, what I mean is getting really good at pointer manipulations
and managing memory yourself.

C++ encourages all sorts of programming practices that I wish I never
learned and have never been very useful to me as a programmer.

Sorry to say, but as a graphics programer, C++ is practically useless.  Its
all C.

However, I'm originally a C++ developer, and i'm still a boost/C++
supporter.

For Boost to remain relevent, it needs to reflect the reality of modern
development.  That is most projects are mixed C/C++ projects.   The needs of
both communities need to be met.

Because boost only meets the needs of C++ developers, it will continue to
loose relevance.

I'm just saying what people are thinking.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:03 PM, David Bergman <
David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:

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