Hendrik Schober
9/28/2008 8:06:00 PM
Roland Pibinger wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:39:15 +0200, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> [...]
>> The reason why I don't recommend it,
>> regardless of a possible fix --and do not recommend most of boost,
>> anymore -- is that with the exception of a few parts the whole
>> collection has become an enormous, unmanageable bloat (unreadable
>> meta-programmed-to-perversion code and absolutely unnecessary
>> dependencies being probably the worst evils). I know that it has
>> still a high reputation but that's basically a result of the past,
>> IMHO; try keeping an eye at the regression reports and you'll see
>> that they are pretty much random number generators from a gigantic
>> house of cards.
>
> The myth that surrounds Boost mostly stems from the intimidating
> complexity they produce with C++ templates: "it's so complex therefore
> it must be good". Library design for real-world applications is, first
> and foremost, about usability. From the beginning Boost tried to push
> the limits of 'template programming' (not C++ programming) but never
> cared about ease of use and real-world applicability.
My POV is that boost code is hard to read because it works with
so many different compilers. Whenever I look at the code my eyes
water because there are almost more workarounds than actual code...
Oh, and I think, while application code has to be only as good
as necessary, library code has to be as good as possible. For me,
a very important measurement for code quality is the question
how many problems it catches at compile-time. And there, boost
code often shines.
Schobi