Talk:Boost (C++ libraries)

missing bits

Explanation of licencing terms, ( see MIT Licence ) ? References to alternatives like POCO ( http://pocoproject.org ), Platinum ( http://pt-framework.sourceforge.net ) and Dlib ( http://dclib.sourceforge.net ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern C++

Why not reword "modern c++" to include either the 1998 specification with templates or "c++ with STL" style wording. There is also a compiler support/regression page available such as [1]. Laundrypowder 04:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say it heavy template use ala Alexandrescu that people understand as "modern". The article need complete rewrite, it is pretty stalled. Pavel Vozenilek 05:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• I won't complain if you leave the term then. Laundrypowder 05:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Article rename

What about renaming the article to "Boost library" (or similar) instead? I find "Boost (programming)" a bit inelegant? --Fredrik Orderud 20:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Article rename is now performed. --Fredrik Orderud 23:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What about Boost libraries (plural)? --24.189.158.214

The page was moved again to Boost (software), despite the above. Instead of moving it straight back, I moved it to Boost C++ Libraries since the article is about the libraries, rather than the 'supplier'. From the home page: Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries. Does that seem reasonable? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After many years there I can assure you that nobody knows :-) If you wander through the site, or the developers' list archives, you'll find all of "Boost library" (as if referring to a single library), "Boost libraries" or "Boost C++ libraries". And of course the name "boost dot org" somehow suggests —but doesn't imply— an organization (whatever that term means). The same pseudo-ambiguity between "library" and "libraries" exists after all in the C++ standard: we and the standard talk about "the standard library" while the single clauses refer to "Containers library", "Iterators library", "Input/output library" etc. Similarly, "boost" is often referred to the site, to the community or the "virtual place", as in "We at Wikipedia try to do our best". All things considered I'd choose between "Boost libraries" and "Boost C++ libraries", with a slight preference for the latter. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What does boost stand for ?

if it stands for something...

See: http://www.boost.org/more/faq.htm Where does the name "Boost" come from? Boost began with Robert Klarer and I fantasizing about a new library effort over dinner at a C++ committee meeting in Sofia Antipolis, France, in 1998. Robert mentioned that Herb Sutter was working on a spoof proposal for a new language named Booze, which was supposed to be better than Java. Somehow that kicked off the idea of "Boost" as a name. We'd probably had a couple of glasses of good French wine at that point. It was just a working name, but no one ever came up with a replacement. Otodoran 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Libraries section, and its Cleanup flag

I looked through the Libraries section, and admit that I can't think of a cleaner or more concise way to describe the information therein. I feel that what is presented is a key part of the article, and should be present. The difficulty is that by its very nature, is tiered, embedded, and somewhat complex. I think that any other method of presenting the information would just result in the section being longer, more complex, and more difficult to parse. I vote for removing the tag: please comment with your feelings. Dxco 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information, and it is not a secondary index for the Boost Web documentation. If the section cannot be rewritten so as to convey the information therein in a more natural (and less externally-dependent) style it should be removed. Chris Cunningham 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A one size fits all method of depicting usefull information does not work accross all categories of information. Some topics, such as something as arcane as highly tiered dynamic link libraries, can benefit from a simple, clean, straightforward detailing of hierarchical in the format currently show. The current sections appears to me as a complex collection of information made understandable by not adhering to a written / conversational form. This section, which I found to be central to my understanding of the topic, would be almost incomprehensible if written in a convetional manner. I understand this topic better because of the information conveyed in the article. Forcing a portion of the nitty gritty to be depicted in a form that isnt fitting to it would make the article opaque. While I deeply agree with the drive to de-listify article accross the board in Wikipedia, I think we should remember that this format for depicting information arose for a reason: in some cases, it is the most concise, clear, and understandable way to do so. Dxco 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information. The argument is not "how best can this arbitrary collection of information be presented", it's "can this arbitrary collection of information be rewritten in such a way as to make it something other than an arbitary collection of information". Conversion to prose would necessitate a lot of additional content being added to explain the importance of various parts, and to convey how they relate to one another in a better way than a bulleted hierarchy. If nobody steps up to do this, it should go. Chris Cunningham 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" is your word, and not one I would use to describe the content involved. For myself, it was the concise layout of information about the components of the boost libraries that got me to a point where I could walk away feeling that I understood the topic at hand. This article has general information, and precise, dense detail - both of which I feel are useful. That a dense and complex aspect of the topic is laid out in a simple, clean form is not, to me, an indication of arbitrary information tossed together on a page. Instead, it's probably one of the cleaner ways to depict a lot of interrelated and hierarchical information that lies at the core of nitty-gritty and complex topic like libraries. In this case, I'll take function first, before form. Dxco 14:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible to remove all the external links and collapse the main section of the article into a series of paragraphs which explain what Boost provides without having to enumerate all its header files. Even if it stays in list format the extlinks need to go, anyway. Chris Cunningham 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow what is wrong with examples. Are there actual guidelines on this? A found the example of Boost.Threads to be more clear than what I saw on other sites. I cut and pasted into my own code and it worked -- a thing of beauty in terms of examples since they showed only what is essential boost. I checked back today and found the examples are gone and the page nothing more than a basic description of what boost is (i.e., less informational value than other sites). I have been intending to post example code in other articles as I see this is already common. Are examples destined to be removed? Arbalest Mike (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Other sites", unsurprisingly, are there to teach people how to use Boost. Wikipedia is not a textbook, instruction manual or how-to guide. The only purpose in its covering a software library is to examine its place in the world, its influences, how it came to be and such. Code examples are used too often in Wikipedia, and articles striving for Good Article status frequently have to lose them in order to achieve such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking

I have reverted the recent addition of links. Links to articles that has nothing to do with the Boost C++ Libraries, such as the link to spirit for the Boost.Spirit library, or links to disambiguation pages only serve to confuse the reader. Please ensure that the links are relevant and disambiguate where appropriate. decltype (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ANSI Rumor

I heard somewhere boost was going to get added to the ANSI spec for C++.

Is this bologna?

--214.4.3.75 (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the libraries are added to the latest language revision. Quoting boost.org:

Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report (TR1) and will be in the new C++0x Standard now being finalized. C++0x will also include several more Boost libraries in addition to those from TR1. More Boost libraries are proposed for TR2.

You may find more info in C++ Technical Report 1 and C++0x. Tigrisek (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

ISO, not ANSI. But, in practice, Boost is actually the "new C++ feature sandbox." Like Tigrisek said, many features from boost were adopted in the new C++11 standard and this trend will continue. Many of the C++ standards committee members are member or contributors to the Boost project. Yeah, so this article really doesn't do Boost any justice. As with any standards committee, I think they omitted a lot of very powerful and mature features of Boost, but at least we got what we did (including some good TMP features!) along with some very needed core language features. Daniel Santos (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Boost C++ Libraries → C++ libraries Boost C++ libraries –

Not a protocol, but a set of libraries, as it says in the article text (with lowercase "l", too). Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; removing the brand name is a puzzling suggestion, regardless of capitalization issues. Powers ^T 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this is not about the standard set of C++ libraries, it is about the Boost ones. Further, nothing in the name suggests it is a protocol. The nominator doesn't make sense and either didn't read the article, or didn't read it properly. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose These libraries are usually simply known as Boost, no one would know them by the proposed name "C++ Libraries". Boost (C++), Boost (library), Boost (libraries), Boost (C++ library) or Boost (C++ libraries) would make more sense, although I'm not sure which one is best. —Ruud 19:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the logo clearly say "Boost C++ Libraries"? That seems like the best name. Powers ^T 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – I think Tony made a mistake, and meant to suggest moving to Boost C++ libraries. I'd support that one, since Boost of proper but libraries is not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry guys. Fixed RM target. I don't mind the suggestions made by Ruud, but this needs a search to confirm that one of them is the best. Tony (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we better start over with our reactions:

• Support – no need to capitalize libraries. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Still oppose; the logo clearly indicates that the entire phrase is a proper noun and thus should be capitalized. Powers ^T 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

the logo that says "boost C++ LIBRARIES"? or is there something else you're referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Either use the full name capitalized or use a disambiguation tag. —Ruud 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Boost (C++) in line with WP:UCN, following the standard disambiguation form used for most C++ articles. decltype (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

• Books – 13 of 22 that talk about "the Boost C++ libraries" and don't have Boost in their titles use lower case. This is a good indication of how the term is used outside of its authorship community. It hard to find books with boost in the title that also use "the Boost C++ libraries" in a sentences, but the one I found uses lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Boost C++ Libraries" is the full proper name, "Boost" is the shortened proper name. If a text calls them "the Boost C++ libraries" it's using the shortened form together with a clarifying term. We don't use those for Wikipedia article titles, we would write "Boost (C++ libraries)" or something of that form. —Ruud 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that that's a proper name. Their official web page has logo with "boost" with subtitle "C++ LIBRARIES", but never refers to their libraries as anything but "Boost libraries". Maybe we can settle on that instead? Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be as strange as moving "Firefox" to "Firefox browser" or "Emacs" to "Emacs editor". Simply use the proper name with some kind of (parenthesized) disambiguation tag if necessary. I've suggested a number of possibilities above. —Ruud 23:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine; as long as we get away from this "proper name" nonsense. I'd suggest Boost (C++ libraries). Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion: everywhere on their own website, it's referred to as just "Boost". Since obviously we can't call it "Boost", "Boost (*something to fix the disambig*)" is required here. --DanielPharos (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, very good suggestion, Dick. Tony (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Since the RM failed, I took the liberty of moving to one of the plausible suggested titles. Anyone prefer a different one instead? Go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Boost Software License

JFTR, Boost Software License and its talk page now end up here after an AFD discussion. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

filesystem in C++17

It should be noted that C++17 may have a filesystem library based on boost::filesystem. At least, the proposal exists, I'm not sure where it stands in the standard itself.40.142.182.216 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Needs updating

C++17 has adopted (adapted?) much of the Boost filesystem library. Boost has a Python (language) library which creates wrappers for C++ code so that it can be used in Python. IOW, Boost is not 'just' for C++. (the copyright on that suggests that this has been available since 2002) IMHO both of these facts are significant and should be mentioned in the article.40.142.185.108 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)