Goran Mitrovic wrote:
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
We really need a section at the top of the page titled "What is Boost?" that covers something like the following: * Boost is a collection of C++ libraries - Free for any use - Extensively peer-reviewed - Extensively Tested
Would it be fair to also mention drawbacks of boost? I can currently think of two of them: pretty large impact on compiling-time and, in the case of rare bugs or misunderstandings how things work, it's sometimes/often/mostly (some poll could pick a realistic adjective) hard to peep in sources and see what's wrong - there are sometimes too many layers (which is good from some perspectives), too much usage of preprocessor (impressive design, but, the code is completely unreadable, especially to beginners) and too much compiler workarounds (they are good because you can compile, but they uglify the code, without a doubt).
You forgot the 10M error messages and issues with compiler conformance! :D Actually, I think Boost should be part of any compiler-writers regression/conformance-testing (with the workarounds removed, of course) More on topic: yes, to a point. No more than one paragraph at the top with a link to getting-started. I also think the documentation links should be much more obvious, if not actually expanded to the library listing.