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).
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.
P.S. Don't get me wrong; this wasn't written in attend of spitting towards Boost. I'm a real happy Boost user. No, really. ;)
I completly agree... Aspecially in part of preprocesor use... And I say it from the perspective of a beginer user... Adam Badura