Subject: Re: [boost] Status of Visual Studio 2017 support
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-21 10:17:06
On 2017-02-21 03:47, Tom Kent via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, degski via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> On 20 February 2017 at 16:33, Tom Kent via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>> I strongly diagree with that. The primary use case for windows developers
>>> with visual studio is as a user of the headers and .lib/.dll files that
>>> come out of boost, inside their project files (configured with a gui to
>>> include/library paths).
>> You seem to imply that the above is different for developers not on
>> windows (other than the "gui" being bash and vim).
>> Most users do not need boost build except for the
>>> step where they need to create the compatible static/dynamic libraries
>>> they will later use.
>> Isn't the above what everybody does with any library (build and link in
>> ones' projects).
> Visual studio has all the settings in the project file, so most developers
> don't have to set them themselves. I guess it is comparable to how a
> package manager will add libraries to a directory in the default library
> path on linux. The key here is that developers, even relatively decent
> ones, may not have a lot of the background that a typical linux user would
> have. Specifically, opening the command prompt and running a simple b2
> command is a lot to ask for even some moderate level windows developers
Even if we know how to do it, we might not want to.
Usually on Windows you click on Setup.exe and get a list of options on
what you can install. You can see what is available, and select the
parts you want.
That is a lot easier, and more confortable, than reading some
documentation to try to come up with an incantation like
Some of us think that C:\> on a black background perhaps isn't the
ultimate user experience.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk