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: > Assuming C++11 is being used for the "tr1" stuff that boost provides, the big > dependency that's difficult to shake is boost::python. It's absolutely > wonderful for what it does, elegant and lightweight. I've tried swig as an > alternative, and it's okay, but boost::python is definitely nicer. > > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Richard Addison-Wood <rich...@wetafx.co.nz> > wrote: > Personally, I would recommend avoiding any dependencies on boost. > > -- Larry Gritz l...@larrygritz.com
_______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list Openexr-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
