Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-17 14:01:16

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:40:31 +0200, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>

> [...]I am not at all attached to removing Boost.Test from Boost, but IMO
> rescuing it would require a significant new investment of time and
> energy from people who are committed to bringing the library up to par
> with the rest of what we do. (I seriously thought about volunteering
> for this myself, but realistically speaking, I don't have the time, and
> volunteering for something you can't actually do is worse than not
> volunteering at all.) Even if volunteers show up, I'd suggest
> proceeding with the plan above, subject to reversal at any time the work
> actually gets done.
> Thoughts?

I used Boost.Test for years until I stumbled over Google Test
(<>) and Google Mock
(<>). I switched to those frameworks
about two years ago mainly because of Google Mock (Boost.Test is very
similar to Google Test; but there is nothing in Boost comparable to Google
Mock). While I think it's possible to use Boost.Test with Google Mock, I
felt that the Google test frameworks gave an overall better impression
than Boost.Test. Now I only use Boost.Test for the Boost libraries. If I
had a choice I'd prefer the Google test frameworks though. Even if someone
spends a lot of time updating Boost.Test and maybe adding a mocking
library, I'm not sure whether that would be enough to make me switch from
the Google test frameworks again. From my point of view it would make more
sense to spend resources in Boost somewhere else than creating the kind of
up-to-date and full-featured C++ testing framework which exists already
(but then of course people decide themselves what they'd like to work on


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