On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Zsolt Udvari wrote: > > So, you would also say, that using the C++STL is a bad idea, since it is > > a huge library. The same is true for the libc or for glib. So where do > > you see the difference. > No, this isn't same. Why? The libc, glib, etc. is used many-many > program so it's installed on many systems. If you want install hlwm, > you've installed some GUI programs (if not, why do you need window > manager? :) ). It's almost impossible to skip glib, so you've > installed glib. But boost libs needed by only some programs, not > almost all. On my system boost is needed by only Libreoffice. If I > haven't Libreoffice, I don't need boost. > > Boost isn't widely used lib as gtk, glib or similar. So this is > the reason why I think *hlwm* shouldn't use boost. I don't share the opinion that the choosing of libraries depends so much on what the others choose. More important for me is: 1. Does the library help me by doing the work for me? (in particular: does it help me creating a stable user-experience?) 2. Is the library itself stable & reliable? 3. Can it be installed easily be users? And both boost and STL and glib fulfill the third criterion. But I think STL fulfills the first much better than glib. I just don't see any advantage of boost over STL, and that is *the only reason* I wouldn't switch to boost. Just like Chris showed, in that tiny dimensions of size (no matter if huge, bloat or whatever you measure), I don't care about binary filesize or number of installed packages or hard disk usage... Cheers, Thorsten
Attachment:
pgpywMYCwKoVU.pgp
Description: PGP signature