Phil Endecott wrote:
I am pleased to be able to review this important library. Boost would definitely benefit from the addition of a geometry library of the right sort.
I am certainly not a geometry expert, but I have written a number of things in the last few years that use geometry in GUIs and for geographic data. I have written this review as a potential user by evaluating how well it would work in a couple of example applications.
My experience over all has been a little disappointing. I think this is mainly because I had very high hopes for the library. The reality has not quite met my expectations. As I will explain in detail below, my complaints are mainly things like excessive warnings and odd misfeatures in the interface. These are all things that could be fixed, and they perhaps only indicate that the library has arrived a little prematurely. Based only on these issues my verdict would be that that the library could be accepted after some revisions. But we must also look at the bigger picture, i.e. the existence of other competing libraries "in the wings". I will discuss this after describing my practical evaluation.
Thank you, Phil, for your detailed review. I am most grateful that you spent so much time to evaluate my library. I don't know how I could have gotten feedback as detailed and valuable as you provided without a formal review. A few weeks ago I came up with an observation about boost: participating in the boost community is ultimately uplifting precisely because it is humbling. It is still true. Thanks again, Luke