Re: [boost] [fiber, afio, dl, bindlib, expected, hana, tick, fit, simd, dispatch] Checking my shortlist of upcoming Boost C++ 11/14 librari

Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber, afio, dl, bindlib, expected, hana, tick, fit, simd, dispatch] Checking my shortlist of upcoming Boost C++ 11/14 librari
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-03 07:49:37

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Dear Boost,
>
> I've spent the last few days reviewing the shortlist of C++ 11/14
> libraries as suggested in this thread
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/255548 which
> appear closest to entering Boost as per the rules in my C++ Now
> abstract:
>
> 1. The library must be C++ 11/14 only. As in, no C++ 03 compilation
> possible.
>
> 2. The order chosen shall be the closest to entering Boost in
> March/April (i.e. now), so already in Boost, approved to enter Boost,
> in the formal review queue, approaching the formal review queue.
>
> At
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Bizs9xz2dyt1d5GJv-pOCmu1cS67gRd0KNYn
> sjYK Ji w&authuser=0 you will hopefully find a traffic light
> dashboard spreadsheet (I tried posting a PNG here, it was refused).
> In it is shown the current state, as estimated by fallible me from a
> cursory glance at the library, for various measures of the library.
> Errors are entirely possible, hence me asking here before I make a
> fool of myself.
>

Fixed link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bizs9xz2dyt1d5GJv-pOCmu1cS67gRd0KNYnsjYKJiw

>
> List members may be as surprised as I was to learn that most of the
> upcoming libraries require C++ 14. They are also universally
> standalone from Boost, being about as weakly dependant as is possible
> and still be called a Boost library. That was a big surprise to me as
> well. Another surprise was the dislike of Boost.Test - a lot of
> libraries don't use it, indeed can't use it. And finally, almost
> everyone uses Travis CI, though not valgrind memcheck for leak
> detection nor coveralls for unit test coverage.
>
> The first category is libraries already in the formal review queue or
> better. These are:
>
> Fiber, AFIO, Dl.
>
> The second category is libraries where the authors have been visible
> enough for me to review the library and score it onto the dashboard.
> These are:
>
> BindLib, Expected, Hana, Tick, Fit.
>
> ... of which BindLib, Expected and Hana are the most "Boost ready" by
> my estimation.
>
> I still haven't reviewed Sqlpp11, SIMD, Dispatch, Range v3, Spirit X3
> nor Proto 0x. The main reason why not is that I would never use any
> of those libraries in any work I expect to do anytime in the next
> five years.
>
> That's quite unfair to those libraries, but I have another big
> reason: I'm also hesitant to review libraries covered by their
> authors also present at C++ Now, or have presented on them in the
> past, as it won't add value plus I probably wouldn't know what I'm
> talking about compared to them so that removes Expected?, Hana, SIMD,
> Dispatch, Range v3, Spirit X3 and Proto 0x.
> Which leaves a shortlist of:
>
> Fiber, AFIO, Dl, BindLib, maybe Expected, maybe Tick and Fit.
>
> I think SIMD and Dispatch have been presented on before at C++ Now
> right? Could anyone also very quickly summarise the main differences
> in their C++ 11 only rewrite? I think I remember it was mainly
> compilation speed rather than doing anything unusually C++ 11 only?
>
> Niall
>
> --
> ned Productions Limited Consulting
> http://www.nedproductions.biz/
> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>