Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 04:29:23
Richard <legalize+jeeves <at> mail.xmission.com> writes:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> boost <at> lists.boost.org spake the secret code
> <loom.20140124T171759-885 <at> post.gmane.org> thusly:
> >* I did not see yet a single library which is simpler
> There are many that are simpler. One is even inside boost itself:
We attach different meaning to the work 'simpler'. I mean simpler from the
unit test writing prospective. There are many different perspectives when
people choose to use one library or another. Boost.Test is trying to be
versatile to fit many different usage scenarios, yet simple to write both
trivial and more advanced testing modules.
> <boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp> is one that several library owners
> have told me that they use instead of Boost.Test because B.T. kept
> breaking their builds and the documentation was not usable.
Boost.Test does not change for many many years now
> >* No one ever expressed a problem with Boost.Test being slow
> Quite a bunch of people expressed frustration with the compile time at
> the C++ Now! 2014 workshop.
Do you have any numbers? How many seconds does it take to build Boost.Test
shared library based test module vs. one built using other alternatives?
> >* Boost.Test is header only (has an ability)
> This one is particularly hard on the compile times.
IMO this use case is intended for ad-hock testing and thus few extra seconds
you spend building are completely irrelevant. If this is really a bother,
prebuilt library is always available.