Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-03 17:58:09

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM, steve_at_[hidden]
<steve_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> **
>
> Greetings,
>
> As a veteran C++ programmer, I've been an admirer of the Boost library for
> many years.  I've used it at a number of companies I've worked for,
> especially the SmartPtr library.
>
>
>
> Right now I'm working for a company that worries a lot about negative
> exposure to Open Source software issues such as questions that might arise
> about authorship, copyright or even patent issues.  The company does allow
> the use of Open Source software, but it requires that each piece of code
> that is brought in first be justified and vetted.  Unfortunately, I'm
> finding this to be a nearly impossible task when I look at the amount of
> code that must be compiled to use the Boost modules I'm interested in.
>
>
>
> I've done a study and written some tools, to determine just how many Boost
> header files must be included to use some of the Boost modules.  The
> numbers are staggering:
>
>
>
>    Any: 79
>
>    FileSystem: 276
>
>    Smart Ptr: 382
>
>    String Algo: 180
>
>
>
> I went on and did a tally of which modules these header files came from.
>  Here are the counts for how many other Boost modules each of these modules
> depends upon:
>
>
>
>    Any: 8
>
>    FileSystem: 13
>
>    SmartPtr: 8
>
>    String Algo: 15
>
>
>
> Given these numbers, I think I have to abandon any thoughts of using Boost
> within my current company.  There's no way I'm going to get approval to
> bring so much code into our work just to get a SmartPtr or FIleSystem
> library.  This is unfortunate, because due to Boost's existence there
> doesn't seem to be much work going on out there to offer lighter weight
> alternatives.
>
>
>
> I'm writing this request in the hopes that there's something I'm missing
> here, and that someone can point out my folly.  Is there a way to utilize
> any of these Boost modules in such a way that they do not require the
> inclusion of so much code?  If not, does anyone have any suggestions as to
> how to make this fly with my boss?  Has this issue come up before and been
> considered by the Boost designers?  I find the issue baffling.
>
>
>
> TIA for any help or insight anyone can provide.
>

I think at some point in the past it was suggested that Boost could use a
tiered system, whereby libraries on tier n could only depend on libraries
in tiers 0, ..., n. The tier of a library would give some indication as to
how fundamentally and generally useful that library is. I don't know how
practically informative such a stratification would ultimately be, though.

- Jeff