
How C++17 Benefits from Boost Libraries - joebaf
https://www.fluentcpp.com/2019/11/19/how-c17-benefits-from-boost-libraries-part-one/
======
noaccntforhotpw
Perhaps some people haven't realized this, but boost had been a testing ground
for new language features for a long time. That's basically the point of TFA.

Boost runs a lot quicker than a standards body, but the proposal isn't quite
as good. I personally like boost's "quicker but worse" methodology, but I can
see the value that the official c++ standards committee provides. E.g. the
atomics interfaces were previewed by boost, but to be done well really did
require the more painful standards process.

In any case, I see the status quo as mostly healthy. It might be better if
boost was to be officially encouraged, but most serious users of c++
understands that boost is useful without official endorsement.

~~~
jdsully
Some boost libraries are very error prone and fall down easily. When it works
it works great though. I’m happy the quality bar is so much higher for the
stdlib. People looking for more bleeding edge stuff can get boost if needed.

~~~
ncmncm
For fun, call reserve() on one of the Boost hash containers when it's empty,
and see when the bucket-array allocation really happens. (Don't try this in
time-critical code.)

Fortunately the Standard containers do better. But the Standard doesn't say
they must.

------
mbrodersen
Yep Boost is really useful if you want to double your build times or want to
make sure your builds fail whenever you upgrade your C++ compiler to a
_slightly_ newer version. Removing Boost from project I work on has always
been an excellent way for me to boost (pun intended) my productivity.

------
joebaf
and part two: [https://www.fluentcpp.com/2019/11/22/how-c17-benefits-
from-b...](https://www.fluentcpp.com/2019/11/22/how-c17-benefits-from-boost-
libraries-part-two/)

