←back to thread

In Defense of C++

(dayvster.com)
185 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 19:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
justicehunter ◴[16 Sep 25 21:24 UTC] No.45268277[source]▶
I'm not sure what I feel about the article's point on boost. It does contribute a lot to the standard library and does provide some excellent libraries, like boost.Unordered
replies(1): >>45268510 #
Night_Thastus ◴[16 Sep 25 21:42 UTC] No.45268510[source]▶
Boost is an awful whole with a couple very nice tiny parts inside.

If you can restrict to using the 'good' parts than it can be OK, but it's pulling in a huge dependency for very little gain these days.

replies(1): >>45270833 #
thelittlenag ◴[17 Sep 25 02:20 UTC] No.45270833[source]▶
I'm old enough to recall when boost first came out, and when it matured into a very nice library. What's happened in the last 15 years that boost is no longer something I would want to reach for?
replies(1): >>45270973 #
Night_Thastus ◴[17 Sep 25 02:37 UTC] No.45270973[source]▶
C++11 through 17 negated a lot of its usefulness - the standard library does a lot of what Boost originally offered.

Alternative libraries like QT are more coherent and better thought out.

replies(2): >>45271768 #>>45273005 #
1. jcelerier ◴[17 Sep 25 07:43 UTC] No.45273005[source]▶
I use boost and Qt but completely disagree. Every new version of boost brings extremely useful libraries that will never be in std: boost.pfr was a complete game changer, boost.mp11 ended the metaprogramming framework wars, there's also the recently added support for MQTT, SQL, etc. Boost.Beast is now the standard http and websocket client/server in c++. Boost.json has a simple API and is much more performant than nlohmann. Etc etc.