Boost is meant to be the standard non-standard C++ library that every C++ user can use. Is it reasonable to assume it’s available for an open source C++ project, or is it a large dependency too far?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Boost is meant to be the standard non-standard C++ library that every C++ user can use. Is it reasonable to assume it’s available for an open source C++ project, or is it a large dependency too far?
Basically your question boils down to “is it reasonable to have [free library xyz] as a dependency for a C++ open source project.”
Now consider the following quote from Stroustrup and the answer is really a no-brainer:
Assuming that this is correct (and in my experience, it is) then writing a reasonably-sized C++ project without dependencies is downright unreasonable.
Developing this argument further, the one C++ dependency (apart from system libraries) that can reasonably be expected on a (developer’s) client system is the Boost libraries. I know that they aren’t but it’s not an unreasonable presumption for a software to make.
If a software can’t even rely on Boost, it can’t rely on any library.