Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-05 13:14:37

On 5 Nov 2013 at 19:42, Gavin Lambert wrote:

> A while back there was a discussion in my team whether (now that the 
> current release of applications are being built in a C++11 compiler) the 
> code should continue to use boost::shared_ptr as before, or mix in 
> std::shared_ptr in newer code, or do a global search-n-replace.  (And 
> similarly for some of the threading stuff.)
> 
> Mixing was quickly ruled out as too confusing and painful (due to 
> incompatibilities).  And we eventually decided not to search-n-replace 
> because (a) the two implementations are not entirely identical, so this 
> might introduce bugs; (b) continuing to use the Boost version makes it 
> easier to backport changes to older releases that still use C++98 
> compilers; (c) presumably the Boost version would be bugfixed or 
> feature-enhanced in advance of the std version, or internally fall back 
> to the std version where compatible.
> 
> Do you think that some of those assumptions are flawed?

At my last employer before I was let go, we seriously investigated 
having a clang AST parser find instances of Boost use and replace 
them with C++11 STL use instead. In fact, boost::shared_ptr<> => 
std::shared_ptr<> was exactly the test case I was developing against.

We were aiming to remove the many duplicate copies of Boost we were 
shipping which was unnecessary because most of them were being using 
in lieu of C++11. If in your case you're happy with the Boost 
implementation, and you'd be importing Boost anyway because you're 
using parts the C++11 STL doesn't provide, I'd just stick with Boost. 
Not changing code = not introducing new bugs.

Niall

-- 
Currently unemployed and looking for work.
Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/