[Coin-discuss] WAS: re: parameter passing -- about boost/graph

[Matthew Galati]

Yes - I agree boost build is messy. Nice part of boost/graph - it's all headers - no build needed.
 
I don't think there is any getting around the use of boost for future C++ development given their involvement in TR1/TR2.
 
Yes, I have seen CGC. I haven't had time to try it. A lot of my code takes advantage of boost/graph -- it'd take me some time to convert. When I have some time, I will consider CGC as an alternative/replacement..
 
Thanks,
Matt


________________________________

From: coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org [mailto:coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org] On Behalf Of hpwalton at comcast.net
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:54 PM
To: coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org; coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
Cc: coin-discuss-request at list.coin-or.org
Subject: [Coin-discuss] WAS: re: parameter passing -- about boost/graph


>
> Also -- boost/graph is really nice.
>

<soapbox>
Yes, it is rich in features.
 
No, it is not "really nice" in my professional opinion.
 
It is very difficult to get to build, much less integrate into commercial software in a way that is supportable in mainstream development.  Consider the compilcations of getting a reliable build environment that integrates with Visual Studio 8 and .Net managed C++ code.  Yuck!
 
Had they used "normal" build tools, I would agree with you.
</soapbox>
 
There is a Graph library in COIN as well.  It is known as CGC.  It is nowhere near as complete as the boost graph library.  Are there features which are missing which you want?  
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.coin-or.org/pipermail/coin-discuss/attachments/20070209/b1641530/attachment.html>