Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Matus Chochlik (chochlik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-18 06:55:06
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2011 3:02 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>>>>> 22. [WANT] I'd add an annex to the docs to compare this library with
>>>>>> other libraries (e.g., the "mirror" library?) that exist out there for
>>>>>> introspection (i.e., some sort of literature review).
>>> I disagree with you. It is not the responsibility of a library developer to
>>> investigate and document every other possibile similar library. I can
>>> understand that if there were a C++ standard library or a Boost library
>>> which offered similar features to what another Boost library is attempting
>>> to provide, then it would be good for the developer to compare his library
>>> to what is already exists in that domain to illustrate the advantages and
>>> disadvantages of one's own approach.
>> What do other Boosters think of this?
> I would hope that out of intellectual curiosity Eddie would want to look at other solutions to the problem, especially now that his library is "complete" and accepted. Â But I think it is the community's responsibility to bring up comparisons. Â E.g. I hoped that Matus Chochlik and Matt Calabrese would bring some perspective to the review, if not actually vote.
I'm very sorry that both some personal and work-related things have kept me from
looking closely and writing a review on Edward's library (and even
from doing anything
introspection/reflection related myself the last month or so).
I'm very interested in Boost.Introspection since it is (I think)
complementary to the
Mirror reflection utilities I'm working on. From my point of view it
is a very useful library
and if I may very briefly compare it to Mirror then Introspection is useful when
you know what you are looking for. Mirror is more about seeing what
"is out there"
(and doing something with it).
>From the little browsing around the docs that I've done, I would vote
into Boost, but since I didn't have the time to try the library or
look at the code
this "vote" would should not be considered as a real review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk