Quote:
Originally Posted by Game_Ender
Calling Boost "expirmental" is a little harsh, because it implies the libraries are ready to be used in serious applications. Most are well tested, maintained, and there possible inclusion for the standard library (and there inclusion in the already release std::tr1) is a very good reason to be using them.
|
You might want to read the FAQ on the boost web site. It is openly acknowledged that there is no assurance of quality, although the obvious intent is that will improve over time.
When evaluating libraries for real usage it is necessary to acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses of those libraries. One of the underpinnings of boost is peer review: in other words, it is expected that people will evaluate the offerings with a critical eye. To a lot of people, that seems harsh.
My comments may seem harsh to you but, again, you strike me as a low-level zealot. One of the strengths of boost, IMHO, is that they welcome critical review; authors of quite a few of the boost libraries would take my comments more in stride that you have.