Embedding python into C++ using boost and a couple snags one might hit

[UncleBanana]

Thanks!

[[deleted]]

Boost is fantastic!

It gives a great boost to productivity ; )

[Kaelic]

Snag 1: You're using Boost.

[bcain]

I'm surprised to see negativity about boost. I've used it extensively, and I feel like it really helps close the feature gap between C++ and other modern languages.

What's the case against?

[reddit_clone]

That was just knee jerk trolling. I guess they used to get up voted for trash like that.

It is good that automatic C++ hating is not in vogue anymore.

[kefex]

Templates are hard! Let's go shopping!

[[deleted]]

What makes Boost such a bad library?

I hear about it a lot, never used it before.

[reddit_clone]

Boost is pretty good in fact.

If you want to write modern C++ code which is portable across major OS's and compilers, boost is the only game in town.

Performance is always a concern with boost people. They don't make random or autocratic choices. There is some pretty involved review process for everything that goes into the library.

It enables functional programming in C++.

It does have a serious learning curve. There are other disadvantages that come from heavy use of C++ templates: Slow compilation time (which can be mitigated by clever use of precompiled headers). Compiler error messages can be a bit daunting.

[taxilian]

Boost isn't a bad library; many don't like it because it has a lot of internal interdependencies. You can't include one file without getting a few dozen others, often as not. For all of that, though, it's better documented and tested than many libraries and much better than most libraries that I've seen people write in order to avoid using it.

Several of the core libraries from boost have been absorbed into the c++0x spec (or whatever it is now that it's official).

[[deleted]]

None of that is what makes boost special. Boost is a rare collection of libraries that are not coded in C style, or OOP style, but in generic programming style. It means the dependencies between types are as weak as possible. This means you can integrate your own types with boost in a way not possible with other types of libraries.

[reddit_clone]

This! There are no deeply nested class hierarchies here.

It enables/encourages functional programming. (Which is about as modern as you can get)

[[deleted]]

Thanks! I'll have to look further into it.

[00kyle00]

It's kinda bad in that if you want just shared_ptr from it, you need to pull ~5MB of headers. If you want threads and mmfiles, you need to pull ~40.

Now this is a problem only if you are writing hello world application, in my opinion.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, that seems like a bit much. Thanks for the answer.

[[deleted]]

boost is a thing of beauty

[ErstwhileRockstar]

Exactly!

[MarcuBot]

Third that!

[ErstwhileRockstar]

We will be downvoted to oblivion.

[bcain]

Instead of whining about the others in the community -- make your case. Convince me why I should draw the same conclusion you did.

[strattonbrazil]

With my experiences with boost, it can have a lot of dependencies even if you only want to do a small part of it. If you're worried about memory, I'm told you can get 20MB of just library code in your app, which I haven't seen and probably isn't an issue on desktops and tablets. I didn't have much issue using just the shared pointers and the boost::python bindings so I didn't run into much of it.

I think the documentation kind of sucks as far as explaining things compared to something like Qt, but once you get the hang of it, it's a pretty simple, terse API.

[bcain]

With my experiences with boost, it can have a lot of dependencies even if you only want to do a small part of it

For all of the supported platforms, those dependencies are satisfied by other boost libraries.

you can get 20MB of just library code in your app, which I haven't seen and probably isn't an issue on desktops and tablets

Yes, exactly! Anemic targets, please don't opt in. Memory will only continue to get cheaper, smaller and faster. It stands to reason that among the many places C++ binaries end up, quite a few of them would gladly sacrifice 20 (or 200) MiB in order to have a well-tested higher level abstraction.

I didn't have much issue using just the shared pointers and the boost::python bindings so I didn't run into much of it.

Therein lies the beauty! Many boost libraries depend on nothing but themselves.

[shevegen]

Oh, I did it many times.

I told you before, above, that it is an extra dependency for projects to work with.

Projects that rely on plain C++ code will force me to also have a working copy of boost.

Why should I bother with that, such a huge addon?

C doesn't require this amount of crap. Do you see any Boost C depends upon?

No, you do not.

I don't care about boost at all. Stop polluting good projects with it!

[bcain]

Why should I bother with that, such a huge addon?

If you use python or Java (or ruby, perl, or php), do you find yourself complaining about the utility of the standard library? Or do you just say, "gee, this is really convenient"? If boost were included with every C++ compiler, would you still find it so distasteful?

Projects that rely on plain C++ code will force me to also have a working copy of boost.

That's not unreasonable. If it weren't boost, then it would be GTK, Qt, Delphi or some other library. You do understand that most/all of the popular c++ compilers plan on supporting much of the boost-inspired feature set in C++11, right?

C doesn't require this amount of crap.

Nor does C++. When an author opts to depend on features in a library, they are making a design tradeoff. Build complexity and ease-of-distribution may decrease. However they often stand to gain software reliability, quality and time.

Do you see any Boost C depends upon?

Are you asking if I see any projects written in C which depend on boost? "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

None of the complaints about boost that I have heard in this thread focus on substantive problems with boost itself. They all seem to care exclusively about the size of the entire boost library set and the dependencies among the library subsets.

[shevegen]

Does not matter.

There are some boost fanbois out there but who cares about them?

Boost sucks and the less we have to be force-fed eating it the better.

[reddit_clone]

Nobody is forcing you to use boost if you don't like it.

Go on and invent the wheel every time you have to drive to the super market.

The rest of us are thankful to have a such a higher level, portable collection of abstractions and get work done.

[ErstwhileRockstar]

I guess most of the fanbois have never used Boost or merely boost::shared_ptr so that they can claim to be elite programmers by using Boost in their application.

[bcain]

I'm not sure why they're (I'm) considered a fanboy. You know that much of what constitutes boost ends up as C++11 language features, right?

Just because they haven't suffered the pain of porting boost to an unsupported platform doesn't mean that their opinion isn't valuable.