Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] From an user to developers
From: Stéphane Vandenbogaerde (svdbg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-10 08:07:15

Le 08/06/2012 18:57, Mateusz Loskot a écrit :

>> 1. the history of all releases, with notes for each release
> You mean a changelog per library?


>> 2. the motivation of their library
> Do you have any examples handy ?

A good example is Boost.Lambda :

Boost.Iostreams could do better...

So as Boost.Locale.

>> 3. when they offer services similar to the ones provided by the STL,
> why did they feel the need to complete it, and what are
> the differences

> Same, examples?

All the TR1 librairies.
Boost.Locale, shared_ptr...

>> 3. for the relevant libraries, their status regarding the new features of C++11
>> (are they obsolete ? do they remain some differences ? ex : Array, Chrono, DateTime),
>> especially the ones related to TR1
> AFAIK, there is no such concept as obsolete Boost library if
> confronted with C++ standard libraries.

Is this an ideological point of view ?

> The fact that C++ std has got std::shared_ptr does not make
> boost::shared_ptr deprecated.

What makes one use boost_shared_ptr instead of std::shared_ptr ?
Does he have to read all the doc to find out the differences ?
Does he have to do same for EACH library conflicting with C+11 ?
Because there are many ones :

Enable If
Lexical Cast
Static Assert

> boost::shared_ptr stays here and will be offered as an alternative
> implementation, same boost::array and similar.

I asked Nicolas Josuttis about Array, and here what he replied to me :

"Yes, boost.array is obsolete with C++11.
Will see what I can do to describe it (limited time currently)."

> Boost is huge and it is impractical to ask developers to follow single
> convention of formats and tools, fight against personal preferences of
> developers, etc. So, I have taken that point.

Well, Boost appears to me as a nice label for a library.
Maybe the developpers could do an effort.

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