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: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-06 02:11:36

steve_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 3) In response to the suggestion to not use the convenience headers,
> like say "smart_ptr.hpp" as apposed to a header for an individual
> header type.
>
> It's bad enough to tell my programmers they can only use certain
> Boost modules.  To tell them that they can only use certain parts of
> certain Boost modules just gets to be too much.

No it's not.  shared_ptr and scoped_ptr are really 2 different things
and shouldn't be treated as one.

> If I have to run to my boss every time I want to use
> one new particular feature from a Boost module, it's not worth the
> effort.  Nor would it be worth the overhead of figuring out how to
> police such a level of code use.
>
> So for better or worse, my consideration of the use of Boost has to
> be on a Module by Module basis.

Why not take your argument to it's logical conclusion.  Make one
header - boost.hpp - and you've only got one module to worry about.

Either accept the code bloat or bring in only what you need.
You can't have it both ways.

> 4) In response to "the license says that it's free to use, and the
> copyright holders have agreed to that license, so everything is
> fine".

> 5) In response to "Who cares how much code there is.  How does one
> "vet" a piece of code, regardless of how much of it there is".
>

Boost has done all it can to address the problems created by
the legal system.  It's not really fair nor realistic for us to more
than we already have.  For the large majority of companies
large and small, this has been enough

> 6) And...I'm not sure this question was asked specifically, but I'll
> ask it myself..."what are you so worried about".

...
lol

> 7) Use a more modern C++
>
> Some of our customers are in the Operating System Stone Age.  For
> example, I often develop on Fedora, but my code has to be able to
> compile and run on Red Hat 5.  AND, we are often told exactly what
> compiler to use, and that compiler sometimes not open source, and in
> a few cases no longer supported.  So solving these issues with newer
> compilers is not an option.
>
> 8) Conclusion
>
> He'd rather hire another programmer just to write
> a SmartPtr library, so that our project can stay on schedule and he
> can sleep at night,

He won't be able to make his schedule if he writes his own library.
He has no idea how much effort it takes to do such a thing.
He'll go broke doing this.

> So another big issue for us is that as soon as
> we say "We use Boost", we are dismissed from consideration for a
> project.  I bet this happens all the time.

lol - maybe.  But fiddling with headers is not going to change that.

Just rewrite the stuff yourself without looking at boost code
or documentation.

> PS) My company DOES already use the Boost Smart Ptr library.

just use the standard library header <memory>.  But of course that
doesn't address your legal concerns.

Robert Ramey