|
From: | Larry Gritz |
Subject: | Re: [Openexr-devel] boost versions |
Date: | Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:03:02 -0700 |
I'm not sure I understand people's objection to Boost, especially for the portions that are header-only. It's solid, very well-vetted, nicely cross-platform (HW, OS, compiler), and you can be confident that it will continue being maintained for a long long time. With high frequency, its solutions to problems are sufficiently best-of-class that they become part of the C++ standard itself, with few changes. Now then, when I write software, I am careful to only use Boost *internally*, I never ever allow one of their types to become part of my public APIs. The design of its packages do vary in their elegance, and I only use a subset. I second the notion that there isn't an especially good substitute for boost::python (though I would be happier if it had been part of the Python distro itself). On Aug 20, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Christopher Horvath wrote:
--
Larry Gritz address@hidden |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |