Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 18:52:07
On 5/14/2015 4:57 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 14 May 2015 at 13:34, Tom Kent wrote:
>>> Boost 1.x is obsolete.
>>> It is obsolete because enough of Boost 1.x is now in the STL that you
>>> no longer need to use Boost 1.x.
>> I don't think this is even close to accurate. It is true that a bunch of
>> the C++11 stuff boost had first, and is now redundant...and even more of
>> the C++11 stuff was built into boost. However, all that isn't more than
>> about 15% of what boost does.
> This isn't the claim. The claim is that so long as the libraries in
> Boost which depend on STL11 equivalents cannot use the STL11
> equivalent, they are suffering from at least these problems:
What do you mean by "STL11 equivalents" ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk