Subject: Re: [boost] Library for configuration file parsing
From: Marsh Ray (marsh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-29 21:09:21
On 11/29/2010 06:10 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 6:56 AM, Marsh Ray wrote:
>> C++ and Boost are well suited for secure coding because of the support
>> for type safety,
>> automatic cleanup, and overall deterministic execution. But probably
>> nothing will replace
>> the need to understand what's going on under the hood as well as the
> If that is your reasoning then you can't use Boost (nor cpp-netlib
> for that matter).
Yeah. I've met a few developers, hackers, etc working in the data
security space. I don't think any of them were particularly into of
template metaprogramming. I doubt any would consider using MPL, for
> "The number of "eyes" that can grok" Boost internals "and
> accurately review it are vanishingly small."
That's neither good nor bad, but it does put Boost in a particular place
in the design space.
Actually, I do think it's good - we need projects that push out the
corners to expand that space, and that's what I love about Boost. But a
more typical software project being built by mortal men on a schedule
usually can't afford the conceptual costs of bringing in more than one
or maybe two of those corners. As square as this sounds, you've got to
keep a foothold in the mainstream.
> Yet, anyone claiming to be
> a C++ security expert positioned to review code for "software quality"
> should be able to review any and all sort of C++ code, even the template
> heavy code like MPL.
That's a really good point, but I think on balance I disagree.
Here's why: Someone might know everything there is to know about, say,
programming in C, but not be qualified to review hard-real-time robotics
systems written in C (though they would obviously have a lot to
contribute). So there's a distinction between the language and the
problem domain and you need to be able to understand both.
Template instantiation is a Turing-complete language and MPL
specifically seeks to enable programming in it. So I think it's
reasonable that even an experienced team of C++ practitioners might
decide that some particular big chunk of metaprogramming wasn't worth
the conceptual overhead for a particular project.
This stuff has a cost, abstraction isn't free. Witness the threads on
template error messages. But when it works out, it can be dynamite: STL.
> Spirit is not special. It uses the same template
> metaprogramming techniques that is prevalent in most of Boost libraries.
> There is no black magic there.
Haha, I don't think you'll find many people (outside of this list) who
don't think it is exactly black magic. :-)
Personally I think it's pretty awesome.
> [I'll try to reply to your Spirit related comments in another post.
> As I see it, your comments there (relating to not being able to
> make it your code work and that JSON is easy to code in C) is totally
All I was trying to say was that I could really use a no-fuss,
bulletproof JSON facility and Spirit seemed like overkill for this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk