Goran Mitrovic <gmit@inet.hr> writes:
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?
No, I don't think so. What other projects do something similar?
I can currently think of two of them: pretty large impact on compiling-time
You're kidding; using shared_ptr slows down your compiles??
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).
That's four or five, not two. And whether those things represent disadvantages are a matter of opinion. If we didn't use the preprocessor, etc., Boost would be bigger, less portable, and harder to maintain.
As a suggestion, would it be possible to make a section in which it is described, at least subjectively and somewhat imprecise, an impact of each library on compiling-time.
No, I don't think so. That information is highly compiler- and usage-dependent and I doubt we could do a reasonably good job. And it will spark all kinds of arguments. That would be a mess. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com