OvermindDL1 wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Christian Schladetsch wrote:
+1 for making it harder to add a new library to boost.
There are already too many libraries.
-1 for making it even harder to add a new library to boost.
Boost and C++ doesn't have anywhere near enough libraries.
-1 too.
Other languages are more popular just *because* they have libraries that do everything, we need such things in C++ too, with the speed that C++ provides us. You can never have too many libraries, as long as they are well documented and categorized.
I believe Christian's response may have more to do with Boost's monolithic nature. It isn't currently possible to say "I need shared_ptr and Boost.Unordered and any necessary dependencies" -- the user must install all of Boost, which is daunting if not as difficult as it first seems. This goes against the C++ philosophy of "you only pay for what you use". This problem will only get worse as Boost accumulates more libraries. I also want more libraries (so here's my -1), and I've used Java largely on the strength of its standard library (especially Swing). In fact, I want them even if it makes Boost large and unwieldy. But I think making Boost modular would do a great deal to assuage the fears of those who would rather be more selective. --Jeffrey Bosboom