Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 22:06:58
On 5/14/2015 8:33 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 14 May 2015 at 19:27, Edward Diener wrote:
>> If C++11/C++14 does not offer anything to a library developer of an
>> existing library than what they already have with C++03 and Boost, what
>> is the impetus to add C++11/C++14 support to a library ?
> I gave four reasons earlier in the thread.
I will just have to disagree with you and say that none of the reasons
which you give is going to make me add C++11/C++14 code to a software
library, Boost or otherwise, or an application.
>> I'll try again, even not knowing what you mean by "STL11 equivalents". Why
>> would libraries in Boost which depend on STL11 equivalents not be able to
>> use the STL11 equivalent ?
> Slight API differences. Legacy API usage. Most STL11 implementations
> are much less forgiving than Boost with usage.
> Most of it is very small stuff, but requires human intervention to
> fix. I certainly found a small truck load of minor breakages in AFIO
> due to poor understanding of the STL. I learned a lot actually. My
> code rigour improved enormously.
It is then not a matter of not being able to use an STL11 equivalent but
only of the work involved to do so. If there is a reason to use
functionality provided by C++11/C++14 a Boost library may still decide
to do so. There is nothing technically holding back that library from
I do understand your point of view about new libraries using C++11/C++14
in order to cut down on dependencies of the equivalent functionality in
Boost. I do not think your point of view is lost on anyone following
this thread and your arguments. But that is a decision which each
library developer will make.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk