Boost considered harmful? [closed]

Answer 1

I can see your point, but understanding something does not mean that you have to rewrite everything from scratch.

They are not "standard" but they are as standard as a library can get.

It is true that deploying them can be painful (but not all of the sublibraries require compilation); on the other hand they do not have further dependencies on their own, so I wouldn't be too worried about that part neither.

Answer 2

I have worked for companies who have viewed boost as library to avoid due in part to its past reputation as a poorly managed project. I know things have changed with the project, but commercial projects who want to use boost must be aware of the source of the code contained in the library, or at least be assured that they're not going to be liable for IP or patent infringements.

Sadly, the library has this reputation and it will take a while for it to break before it sees wide use in the commercial sector. I also feel this is a reason not to recommend it blindly.

Answer 3

Boost is a great library. I really hope that it grows in breadth and acceptance. Use it, extend it, and promote it.

One of the great things about the .NET community is that it has a great base class library. One of the fundemental problems with C++, I believe, is the minimalistic C++ standard library. Anywhere you go to develop code, FOSS or corporate, there is some selection of libraries that are used since there isn't a broad standard library. So you end up being a INSERT_YOUR_COMPANY_HERE C++ programmer and not necessarily too transferrable. Yes, you design/architecture skills transfer, but there is the learning curve with picking up familiarity with whatever set of libraries the next place is using. Where as a .NET developer will basically be using the same class library and can hit the ground running. Also, the libraries that are built (and reused) have a broader base to build on.

Just as an aside, you can use http://codepad.org for a code paste bin and it supports boost!

Answer 4

I would agree with the point about smart pointers. I am a C++ beginner, and when asking a simple question about pointer syntax, one answer suggested smart pointers were the way to go. I know I'm not ready for boost (I'm not really ready for the STL either), so in most cases I steer myself away from that type of suggestion.

Answer 5

• It's impossible to understand everything thoroughly all the time. So take the word of many professional C++ developers for it that many parts of boost are indeed very useful things to use in your day-to-day development.
• The inclusion of quite a lot of boost in C++0X is testament that even the team that manages the evolution of the language thinks that boost is a Good Thing (tm)
• C++ is a weird, tough language. It's relatively easy to learn compared to how incredibly hard it is to master. There's some really arcane stuff you can do with it. Boost::mpl builds on some of those arcane things. I love boost, but I cringe every time I see someone in my organisation use boost::mpl. The reason: even quite seasoned C++ developers have trouble wrapping their head around how it works, and the code that uses it often reflects that (it ends up looking like someone banged code out until it worked). This is not a good thing, so I partially agree that some parts of boost should not be used without caution (boost::spirit is another example).
• The C++ standard is also a weird thing. Most common compilers don't implement all of the existing standard (e.g. template exports). It's only a guideline of what to expect.
• If your developer doesn't have the savvy to decide which smart pointer to use in a particular situation, perhaps they shouldn't be messing around in that part of the code without senior guidance.
• There are always external libraries, starting with the run-time. A lot of boost is header-only so it does not introduce new external dependencies.

Answer 6

The consensus among almost all the answers is that boost is very valuable for experienced developers and for complex, real world, C++ software. I completely agree.

I also think that boost can be very valuable for beginners. Isn't it easier to use lexical_cast than to use ostringstream? Or to use BOOST_FOREACH instead of iterator syntax? The big problem is lack of good documentation of boost, especially for beginners. What is needed is a book that will tell you how to start with boost, which libraries are simple libraries that simplify tasks, and which libraries are more complex. Using these libraries together with good documentation will IMO make learning C++ easier.