Boost

Discussion in 'C++' started by Nick Baumbach, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.

    I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    takes hours to compile.
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 17, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nick Baumbach

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Friday, 17 January 2014 17:11:24 UTC+2, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.


    Boost is collection of about hundred of quite fine open source C++
    libraries. Majority of C++ developers have at least tried some of
    those.

    > I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    > takes hours to compile.


    Most of boost libraries are header only; you just #include files to use
    them in your program. If particular boost library makes things easier or
    not depends on if your program needs to do what it does or not.

    There are only about dozen of boost libraries that have compiled binary
    parts and handful that have optional compiled binary parts. If you don't
    even know what boost is and if you need those libraries for anything
    then what is the point of compiling them? Also I'm pretty sure that you
    can find built binaries from net like with any other open source.
    Öö Tiib, Jan 17, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 17.01.2014 16:11, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >
    > I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    > takes hours to compile.
    >


    You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.

    However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
    shared_ptr.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
    Alf P. Steinbach, Jan 17, 2014
    #3
  4. On 1/17/2014 10:11 AM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >
    > I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    > takes hours to compile.


    Plenty of people use Boost code. It does make things easier. If you
    don't like it, don't use it. There is very little value in complaining
    about something for which you don't have any use, or on which you don't
    have any intention to spend any of your precious time.

    Here is an analogy: it takes significant time to earn money to buy a car
    and to learn to drive one. But once you buy it and start using it, you
    often find that it does make your life easier. It's called "investment".

    If you think that a few hours of compilation is not worth the return
    that you might get from using Boost after you have prepared it for your
    use, then don't spend those few hours. Life's too short.

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 17, 2014
    #4
  5. n wrote:

    > On 17.01.2014 16:11, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    >> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >>
    >> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since
    >> it takes hours to compile.
    >>
    >>

    > You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
    >
    > However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
    > shared_ptr.


    How do I know whether I need it.
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 17, 2014
    #5
  6. n wrote:

    > If you think that a few hours of compilation is not worth the return
    > that you might get from using Boost after you have prepared it for your
    > use, then don't spend those few hours. Life's too short.


    Can't you read, how do one knows that Boosts code is needed. What can
    Boost do, I can'd do simpler and ergo, faster.

    More code added increase complexity, unnecessary.
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 17, 2014
    #6
  7. On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > n wrote:
    >
    >> On 17.01.2014 16:11, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    >>> Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >>>
    >>> I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since
    >>> it takes hours to compile.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
    >>
    >> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
    >> shared_ptr.

    >
    > How do I know whether I need it.


    I think the guiding principle here is "if you need to ask, you probably
    have no use for it. Yet."

    Here is the metaphor I think is applicable here. Can you dig a ditch
    using your spade? Would an excavator help? Not really, if a ditch is
    but a few feet long and a foot deep and the soil is loose and light.
    You would only use an excavator if the amount of work warrants it. Of
    course, if you already have an excavator on site, using it to move even
    a bit of earth costs you almost nothing and can save some time, compared
    to digging with a spade, even a mere few cubic feet of dirt.

    Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
    here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
    more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
    then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 17, 2014
    #7
  8. n wrote:

    > Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
    > here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
    > more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
    > then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.


    And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked for
    noise.
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 17, 2014
    #8
  9. On 1/17/2014 12:01 PM, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > n wrote:
    >
    >> Read about Boost, learn about the problems people solved using it. Some
    >> here might tell you about it, but using Boost's online forum is probably
    >> more effective. If you find that you can solve some problem with it,
    >> then get it, invest some time learning it. Or don't.

    >
    > And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked for
    > noise.


    Your original post did not contain any questions. It only contained a
    childish whine about the perceived difficulty of compiling Boost. Learn
    to ask questions. Visit this page:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    As Drew Lawson write here

    On 1/17/2014 10:59 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
    > [..]
    > We do not know what your projects are, so have no way of knowing
    > what you need.


    consider telling us what it is you do, what problems you're trying to
    solve, _before_ anyone could tell you to use some specific part of Boost
    or to skip it altogether.

    And now please ask your questions. Or don't.

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Jan 17, 2014
    #9
  10. Nick Baumbach

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Fri, 2014-01-17, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >
    > I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    > takes hours to compile.


    I suspect that Stroustrup sums it up nicely:

    http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#boost

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
    Jorgen Grahn, Jan 17, 2014
    #10
  11. Nick Baumbach

    Guest

    On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:11:24 AM UTC-6, Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Does anybody use Boost code, what is it.
    >


    I use the Boost Intrusive library.

    > I mean, it has to make things easier, but it does not looks like, since it
    > takes hours to compile.


    I think parts of Boost, like the containers, are great.
    Other parts of Boost are not so great.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - Heavenly code.
    http://webEbenezer.net
    , Jan 17, 2014
    #11
  12. Nick Baumbach

    Guest

    On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:37:16 AM UTC-6, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
    >
    > You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
    >
    >
    > However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
    > shared_ptr.
    >


    I think std::array would be a better example. I still
    don't find much need for shared_ptr.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
    , Jan 17, 2014
    #12
  13. Nick Baumbach

    Ian Collins Guest

    wrote:
    > On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:37:16 AM UTC-6, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
    >>
    >> You can use the header-only sub-libraries without building Boost.
    >>
    >>
    >> However, the most useful of them are now part of the standard, e.g.
    >> shared_ptr.
    >>

    >
    > I think std::array would be a better example. I still
    > don't find much need for shared_ptr.


    Maybe you don't but others certainly do!

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jan 18, 2014
    #13
  14. Nick Baumbach

    Ian Collins Guest

    Robert Wessel wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:56:47 -0600, Paavo Helde
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Wessel <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> And just what part (or all) of Boost is going to require hours of
    >>> compilation time? Sounds like a troll to me...

    >>
    >> Figuring out how to get the bjam (or b2 or whatever it is called nowadays)
    >> compilation to work and then building all possible variants
    >> (static/dynamic/debug/nodebug/32-bit/64-bit/static runtime/dynamic runtime
    >> etc) of all existing compilable Boost libraries can indeed take hours on a
    >> mediocre machine. Not that it's needed for anything, it's just the simplest
    >> approach if someone has no idea what he wants.

    >
    >
    > For grins, I just did a "bootstrap" / ".\b2" of a freshly downloaded
    > Boost 1.55.0 on an eight year old 2.8GHz dual core Pentium 4 (a
    > Pentium D), rotating disk, 4GB, WinXP, and running some other stuff as
    > well (so both cores were maxing out at times). I'm not sure how much
    > more mediocre we can practically get.
    >
    > Wall clock was 53 minutes. And that's long by a bit, since I was away
    > from the PC when the bootstrap finished, but from the look of the time
    > stamps, about two minutes, and as I mentioned, I was using the machine
    > for other things as well. So let's call it 50 minutes on that
    > machine.
    >
    > Admittedly MSVC is usually a faster compiler than GCC...


    On a more up to date machine with gcc:

    time ./b2 -j 32

    <stuff>

    The Boost C++ Libraries were successfully built!

    real 1m2.319s
    user 27m57.961s
    sys 1m49.214s

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jan 18, 2014
    #14
  15. Nick Baumbach

    Guest

    On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:09:45 PM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote:
    >
    > Maybe you don't but others certainly do!
    >


    I think Mr. Stroustrup's comments on shared_ptr
    are helpful.

    At the 46 minutes and 43 second mark here:

    http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Goi...eractive-Panel-The-Importance-of-Being-Native

    He says he wouldn't list shared_ptr in his top ten
    C++ 2011 features. I agree.

    I think it's a good idea to review/minimize your use
    of unique_ptr and to be even more wary of shared_ptr.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enteprises - So far G-d has helped us.
    http://webEbenezer.net
    , Jan 18, 2014
    #15
  16. Robert Wessel oratorically vehemently insists


    > And just what part (or all) of Boost is going to require hours of
    > compilation time? Sounds like a troll to me...


    Sir, you do not contribute! YOU seemingly are the troll here.

    Or, alternatively, are fucking stupid. In any case, stop infesting this
    thread with nonsense and leave!
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 18, 2014
    #16
  17. Ian Collins oratorically vehemently insists

    > On a more up to date machine with gcc:
    >
    > time ./b2 -j 32
    >
    > <stuff>
    >
    > The Boost C++ Libraries were successfully built!
    >
    > real 1m2.319s user 27m57.961s sys 1m49.214s


    Wow, -j 32 !! Say no more. Where did you find that 32 since at most I only
    can find 16, as 2 threads per core. Actually thread core, not real core.
    An i7 is still a 4 core, not sure how that threaded core is embedded into
    the hardware.

    Please elaborate
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 18, 2014
    #17
  18. Victor Bazarov wrote

    >> And now please answer the question. Only if you can, I did not asked
    >> for noise.

    >
    > Your original post did not contain any questions. It only contained a
    > childish whine about the perceived difficulty of compiling Boost. Learn
    > to ask questions. Visit this page:


    Sir, you are violating the unwritten rules of usenet, insisting making
    noise instead of relating to the issue in the post.

    You are insignificant. Read the fucking subject line. Better yet, just
    leave.
    Nick Baumbach, Jan 18, 2014
    #18
  19. Nick Baumbach

    Ian Collins Guest

    Nick Baumbach wrote:
    > Ian Collins oratorically vehemently insists
    >
    >> On a more up to date machine with gcc:
    >>
    >> time ./b2 -j 32
    >>
    >> <stuff>
    >>
    >> The Boost C++ Libraries were successfully built!
    >>
    >> real 1m2.319s user 27m57.961s sys 1m49.214s

    >
    > Wow, -j 32 !! Say no more. Where did you find that 32 since at most I only
    > can find 16, as 2 threads per core. Actually thread core, not real core.
    > An i7 is still a 4 core, not sure how that threaded core is embedded into
    > the hardware.
    >
    > Please elaborate


    Dual 8 core Xeon E5 and plenty of RAM.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jan 18, 2014
    #19
  20. Drew Lawson wrote:

    > Anyway, it was no particular problem. We just told new people (or
    > people with new machines) to start it before leaving for the day.
    >
    >
    > (FWIW, I think the OP is yet another usenet performance artist.)


    You agree with him that it takes hours then still call him "performance
    artist".

    What sort of performance artist are you?
    Herman Viracocha, Jan 20, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard Latter
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,889
    Julie
    May 17, 2004
  2. Steve Knight
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    746
    Steve Knight
    Oct 10, 2003
  3. Toby Bradshaw
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,729
    Kai-Uwe Bux
    Jun 2, 2006
  4. Colin Caughie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    697
    Shooting
    Aug 29, 2006
  5. Misiu
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,355
    Misiu
    Jan 31, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page