From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-08 02:39:49
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:05 PM Edward Diener via Boost
> Please stop with this mantra of library X not depending on any other
> Boost library and reinventing constructs offered by other Boost
> libraries ( or elsewhere ). It is not the way most programmers create
> library software.
I'm not saying that this applies to all libraries. Having every
library invent every wheel is clearly not sustainable. But neither is
introducing a dependency on Boost just because you want to call
boost::exchange or because you want the BOOST_NODISCARD macro.
The decision on whether to introduce a dependency should never be
automatic one way or the other. It should be a carefully considered
choice which balances the costs against the benefits. Now it just so
happens, for JSON, URL, and ZLib, this balance is obviously in favor
of having no dependencies. These libraries make sense as "leaf"
libraries (terminal nodes in the directed acyclic graph of
Although it is irrational, there are many who view Boost as "too big"
or having "too much legacy code" or whatever. As JSON libraries are in
high demand, there's value in ensuring that my library has no
dependencies. This equation changes depending on the library of
-- My advice on requiring C++17 for standalone versions of libraries is actually not applicable to deflate, since deflate doesn't need std::optional or std::string_view (or their Boost equivalents). A standalone version of deflate could and should require only C++11. Thanks
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk