On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Gregory Crosswhite <gcross@phys.washington.edu> wrote:
In conclusion, I have found that Boost.Phoenix is simply too painful to use in practice for most cases where I have been using Boost.Local. Although it could potentially allow for very elegant code in many cases, it is so hard to figure out what you are doing wrong that it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. I am actually a little sad at having arrived at this conclusion, because the library looked incredibly cool and I was very excited about trying it out, and now I am just walking away from the whole experience feeling incredibly frustrated. Furthermore, even if I were an expert in it I have trouble seeing how in most of the places in my code it would result in code that was either more clear or easier to write. The Boost.Local code has extra noise at the beginning, but when the main body of the nested function contains lots of calls it is far more expressive to write the C++ code directly than to use lots of pheonix::bind functions to accomplish the same thing.
This doesn't mean that I think that Boost.Phoenix is a bad library. Reading through the documentation I am absolutely amazed at how it can be used to create very expressive functions; the authors have clearly worked very hard on it and should be proud of their work. However, it simply cannot be treated as invaliding the need for something like Boost.Local, because for one to accomplish many of the same tasks in Boost.Phoenix as one can accomplish in Boost.Local one has to deal with a whole lot of extra mental effort and frustration, and the result at the end is often less expressive and clear (and potentially less maintainable) as it would have been if one had used Boost.Local since the body is no longer expressed in standard C++.
I hope that you all find this informative!
Indeed, very informative for me. (I only hope my library is helping you enough to justify the time you spent on this comparison :) .) -- Lorenzo