Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 11:09:11
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ...even when you have Boost you might prefer the C++ standard equivalent
> to avoid the Boost dependency.
There is a greater cost to using Boost types over their C++
equivalent. They often differ in small ways. boost::optional,
boost::posix_time, and boost::shared_ptr come to mind, there are
When writing code you can assume that a reader will know and
understand C++ standard library types (since they are... standard).
The same cannot be said about the corresponding Boost types.
Admittedly this difference is sometimes slight but it is still
For this reason, a standard library type almost always has an
advantage even when the Boost type offers improved functionality;
standard library types are what all C++ programmers know.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk