From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-27 12:54:03
On 11/27/2020 3:58 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> == The problem.
> TL;DR: we are having huge troubles with usability and popularity!
> Quite a lot of companies forbid using Boost because:
> * it provides vocabulary types, that should be the same across the
> whole project (like shared_ptr, filesystem::path or optional).
> Otherwise it's hard to combine different APIs
> * it is huge, in consists of legacy on more than a half, with a lot of
> dependencies between libraries. This is extremely painful for big
> companies, because there's no efficient distributed build system. Each
> company invents it's own and/or tries to minimize headers by all
> New companies (startups) also avoid Boost:
> * "We are using C++17, we do not want legacy libraries with C++98 support"
If a library provides support for C++98/2003 but also works perfectly
fine using C++17, please explain to me what is wrong with using that
library when compiling for C++17 ? Thank you !
> * Junior developers are confused by multiple vocabulary types. "Should
> we use boost::optional or std::optional?"
See CXXD ( https://github.com/eldiener/cxx_dual ) or always use standard
libraries when available.
> * hard to upgrade, because symbols are not versioned
Versioned symbols ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk