Re: Which libraries in Boost are mature enough to be used in real applications?
"Le Chaud Lapin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
True. IMO, one major reason for rejection is that the model is not
universal. In othe words, the creator of the libary has to invest
considerable thought into examining just what is being model before
marking the library.
Wait; you're suggesting that libraries should be created without a
careful examination of their problem domain? A good library provides
abstractions. Abstractions are normally generalized _from_ something.
I can't imagine approaching any library design without looking very
carefully at the domain being modeled could ever lead to success.
So one could say that, if you have managed to create a completely
portable library that seems to satisfy all, then you have
coincidentally devised a steady-state model for the domain that you
are making a library for.
Isn't that a conundrum for anyone building abstractions? STL probably
seemed to its creators to be a framework that could handle the domain
of linear sequence processing, but of course despite being a great set
of abstractions, it constrains the domain. For example, STL doesn't
handle heterogeneous sequences (tuples), and is really inefficient for
dealing with logically-linear-but-pysically-hierarchical data
structures like std::deque.
In serialization, I noticed that Boost, IMO, came very close, but
Robert Ramey is the author of Boost.Serialization.
started that versioning stuff to compensate for changes in
the declaration of classes...
.....and how does the introduction of versioning "create a steady-state
model" of the serialization domain? Do you honestly believe that not
adding versioning would have made a difference in that regard?
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]