Re: [boost] Curiousity question

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
others.

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
present.

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.