Is Boost the only way for VS2005 users experience TR2? Also is there a idiot proof way of downloading only the TR2 related packages?
I was looking at the boost installer provided by BoostPro Consulting. If I select the options for all the threading options with all the packages for MSVC8 it requires 1.1GB. While I am not short of space, it seems ridiculous that a library needs over a gigabyte of space and it takes BPC a long time to catch up with the current release.
What packages do I need? I'm really only interested in those that comprise std::tr2 and can find that out by comparing those on offer to those in from the TR2 report and selecting those from the list but even then it isn't clear what is needed and the fact that it is a version behind annoys me.
I know from previous encounters with Boost (1.33.1) that self compiling is a miserable experience: A lot of time wasted to get it started and then a hoard of errors passes across your screen faster than you can read, so what you are left with is an uneasy feeling that something is broken but you don't quite know what.
I've never had these problems with any Apache library but that is another rant...
I believe you're actually referring to TR1, rather than TR2. The call for proposals for TR2 is open, but don't expect to see much movement until the new C++ standard is out. Also, although boost is a provider of an implementation of TR1, dinkumware and the GNU FSF are other providers - on VC2005 boost is probably the easiest way to access this functionality.
The libraries from boost which are likely to be of most importance are
reference
smart pointer
bind
type traits
array
regular expressions
The documentation for building boost has been gradually improving for the last few releases, the current getting started guide is quite detailed. smart pointer and bind, should work from header files, and IMO, these are the most useful elements of TR1.
Part of the beauty of Boost is that all code is in header files. They have to for template reasons. So probably downloading the code and including it in your project will work. There are some libraries in Boost that do need compiling, but as long as you don't need those...
The libraries I am most interested in from TR1/TR2 are threads and the related atomics.
Compiling the boost libraries for yourself is actually quite simple, if not that well documented. The documentation is in the jamroot file. Run bjam --help in the boost root directory for a detailed list of options. As an example I used the following command line to build my current set up with boost 1.36.0:
bjam --build-type=complete --toolset=msvc --build-dir=c:\boost\build install
It ran for about a half hour on my machine and put the resulting files into c:\boost
Related
I was playing with the C++ Boost.Process library (v1.68) and am using cmake to compile.
I found it surprisingly difficult to know which cmake component (or even boost compiled library) a particular boost header/library requires. There are various similar Stackoverflow topics (some linked below), but most are very specific, fairly old, or end up in long discussions without really satisfying solution, and I am surprised that such a widely used collection of libs wouldn't have a simple section in the docs saying e.g. "Boost process requires X and Y" (or at least I could not find it).
I initially got tricked by boost listing Boost.Process as "header only". Same e.g. at https://stackoverflow.com/a/45946466/8224596.
From what I can gather however, it seems to me that "header only" for boost only means "no additional code to compile apart from other boost components". I mistakenly thought the "Categories" in the boost lib list were an indicator to which libs they depend on, but that turns out to be wrong as well.
Thus question remains open... How do I know which compiled libraries a boost library depends on?
The only reliable solution I have found so far is a boost lib tool "bcp" (inspired by How to find out what dependencies (i.e other Boost libraries) a particular Boost library requires?). When I run bcp --list boost/process/child.hpp (which is the only header I use), I get a long list of files, ending with
[...]
boost/winapi/synchronization.hpp
boost/winapi/time.hpp boost/winapi/wait.hpp
libs/filesystem/build/Jamfile.v2
libs/filesystem/src/codecvt_error_category.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/operations.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/path.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/path_traits.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/portability.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/unique_path.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/utf8_codecvt_facet.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/windows_file_codecvt.cpp
libs/filesystem/src/windows_file_codecvt.hpp
libs/system/build/Jamfile.v2
libs/system/src/error_code.cpp
This would indicate that there are some dependencies on the boost components filesystem and system (for my v.1.68, I believe this would be different for 1.69 since system is now header only according to the docs).
This works, but the original topic is 8 years old. Is there a better way to get information about dependencies than bcp (e.g. a doc page I missed...)?
I the worst case, I hope this may help someone else going through the same process.
Thanks!
I would like to start using boost in an embedded environment. I can live without boost libraries that require compilation for quite sometime. I suppose just moving boost directory into appropriate place in our code base will do the trick
Am I right about it or it is more involved than that?
How to get rid of header files for the libraries that are not being used?
Are there any gcc version dependencies in boost libraries. E.g. can use gcc-4.1.1 with the latest?
Am I right about it or it is more involved than that?
That will do it.
How to get rid of header files for the libraries that are not being used?
Why bother? They're not going to be compiled into the program. When you deploy your distribution won't be any different whether you remove them or not.
Are there any gcc version dependencies in boost libraries. E.g. can use gcc-4.1.1 with the latest?
vOv - That's a very old version. Boost takes things a lot further than most, more that I think they should most of the time, trying to make sure it works with old and/or broken compilers. You're really pushing it though.
I have not tried it myself, but if you compile Boost with a directory prefix, then I suppose you could move the directory later. I can't see a big problem with that or at least one that can't be fixed quickly.
As for getting rid of header files for libraries that aren't use, look into the bcp utility for the version with which you are using:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/tools/bcp/doc/html/index.html
It is "a tool for extracting subsets of Boost" -- exactly what you are looking for.
As for your last question, I think it depends on what version of Boost you are using. I've never had a problem with gcc dependencies...it seems their requirements are fairly liberal. I don't think you need to be worried too much about it unless you plan to use a version of gcc that is "much" older (than the Boost you plan to use). I would guess 'old' here is old enough that you don't need to worry -- any number that I would say would be merely a guess...
Hope this helps!
It is unclear to newcomers to the ecosystem what is the canonically preferred way to structure and manage building small to medium sized OCaml projects. I understand the basics of ocamlc, &c.--they mirror conventional UNIX C compilers enough to seem straightforward. But, above the level of one-off compilation of individual files, it is unclear how best to manage compilation simply and cleanly. The issue is not searching for potential tools, but seeing one or a few Right (enough) Ways--as validated by the experience of the community--for structuring and building standard OCaml projects.
My model use case is a modest but nontrivial project, of pure OCaml or OCaml plus a C dependency. Such a project:
contains a number of source files
links to a number of standard libraries
links to one or more 3rd party libraries
optionally includes a C library and OCaml wrapper as a subproject (though this could also be managed separately and included as a 3rd party library, as in (3))
Several alternative tools stand out:
Custom Makefiles seem to be the common standard in most open source OCaml packages, but appear frustratingly verbose and complex--even more so than for modest C/C++ projects. Worse, many even seemingly simple OCaml libraries layer autoconf/automake on top for even greater complexity.
ocamlbuild appears to offer a modern, streamlined mechanism for automating builds with minimal configuration, but it is not well documented for newcomers, nor represented by example in the introductory materials in the OCaml ecosystem, nor visibly used by any of the various published OCaml projects which I have browsed for inspiration.
OASIS seems to be a layer of convention and library code atop other build systems to support building a package manager and library, like Cabal.
(I have also seen OMake, which appears to be a self-styled "make++" which also includes a suite of standard rules for common languages, including OCaml, and ocaml-make née OCamlMakefile, providing a template of standard rules for GNU make.)
Are any of these a preferred, modern way of managing OCaml builds?
How are project files best structured?
How are 3rd party library dependencies included and managed? Is it preferred to install them at the system level, or is there a standard and straightforward way of managing them locally to a project? I would much prefer a model in which projects remain as self-contained as possible.
You've got a thorough listing of the options available, but this question will not have a clear answer. My personal recommendation is also to use ocamlbuild. The myocamlbuild.ml file provided here is a good start. It will allow you to easily compile projects that depend on various libraries. I don't think it handles the case of binding to C libraries, but there are additional examples on the wiki that may help.
Some people object to ocamlbuild because it is yet another build tool, complicating package managers jobs. However, its ease of use and the fact that it is included in the official distribution is making it more and more widely used.
You can also skip all this and use oasis directly. It is very new, and a stable release has not yet been announced, but it is very usable. It will generate the myocamlbuild.ml automatically for you. This is probably the way to go in the very near future, if not already. Furthermore, by using oasis, you will immediately have the benefit of oasis-db, a CPAN like system for OCaml that is under development.
Regarding managing libraries, the answer is ocamlfind. If you have multiple instances of OCaml installed, calling the appropriate copy of ocamlfind will automatically cause all references to libraries be those for that particular instance, assuming you use ocamlfind systematically for all libraries. I currently use godi to install OCaml and libraries. It uses ocamlfind, and I have no problem having multiple instances of OCaml installed.
Personally I'd give +1 for ocamlbuild. It's default rules are good enough to compile small to medium projects with one command and none to very minimal configuration. It also enforces some very reasonable conventions (not mixing sources with build results). And for larger projects it can be customized to one's desire, with extra rules & plugins. At the company where I work we are using it for a large project (Ocaml + some C + some preprocessing + ...) and it works like a charm (and gives us much less headaches than Makefiles would).
As for manuals, I'd think the user guide (available from the author's webpage,) should be enough to get you started. More funky stuff may require a bit more digging.
+1 for OMake.
We revamped our build infrastructure a few years ago and chose OMake for the following reasons:
our products are composed of mixture of C, C++, Managed C++, Ruby and OCaml.
we target both Linux and Windows.
we interact with databases at build time.
for some productions we had to use OCaml 3.10.
our original build system used autoconf/automake.
we require out-of-source builds*.
To be honest I don't know if we could have done it with ocamlbuild, I haven't tested it. The tool is in use for sure since there is some activity around it in OCaml's bugtracker. If you opt for ocamlbuild, make sure you have an up-to-date version of OCaml.
*OMake supports out-of-source builds in a bit non-obvious way. It also has some issues when sources are read-only. We had to patch and rebuild our Windows version of OMake.
The current recommendation is to use Dune, a composable build system that supports OCaml and Reason compilation. It's being actively developed.
The Quickstart page gives a variety of project templates to start with.
Dune can also handle the following:
FFI with C and C++
Compile to JavaScript via js_of_ocaml
Cross compilation support via opam-cross
Opam file generation
Opam is the de-facto package manager for OCaml. Besides finding and installing packages, it can also handle multiple OCaml installations.
Esy is a newer, package.json-driven package manager born from the Reason community. Its pitch is that it brings out-of-the-box project sandboxing, and provides an easy way to pull existing opam packages.
good question. I would tend to say :
1) ocamlbuild
It is likely to be the standard way to compile, because it is efficient, fast, and the default tool given by the official distribution. The fact that it is in the official distribution is good point, because it is more likely to remain with time. Furthermore, it has ocamlfind enabled, so it can manage packages installed with ocamlfind, another standard for installing packages (ocamlfind is a bit like pkg-config for C)
2) But it won't be enough for your project. The integration with C is basic with ocamlbuild. So here I would maybe advise you to use oasis to finally answer your question. I also tried OMake, but did not like it.
3) However, your build scripts are not likely to work straight if you wan't other people to be able to download and build your project on their own machine. Furthermore, oasis does not handle pkg-config. For those reasons, I would tend to advise you to use ocaml-autoconf (ocaml macros for autotools). Because autotools are the standard for managing C libraries and it is well known by package maintainers. It can also handle cross-compilation...
=> ocaml-autoconf with ocamlbuild
I've heard a lot of good comments about Boost in the past and thought I would give it a try. So I downloaded all the required packages from the package manager in Ubuntu 9.04. Now I'm having trouble finding out how to actually use the darn libraries.
Does anyone know of a good tutorial on Boost that goes all the way from Hello World to Advanced Topics, and also covers how to compile programs using g++ on ubuntu?
Agreed; the boost website has good tutorials for the most part, broken down by sub-library.
As for compiling, a good 80% of the library implementation is defined in the header files, making compiling trivial. for example, if you wanted to use shared_ptr's, you'd just add
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
and compile as you normally would. No need to add library paths to your g++ command, or specify -llibboost. As long as the boost directory is in your include path, you're all set.
From the boost documentation:
The only libraries that need to be compiled and linked are the following:The only Boost libraries that must be built separately are:
Boost.Filesystem
Boost.IOStreams
Boost.ProgramOptions
Boost.Python (see the Boost.Python build documentation before building and installing it)
Boost.Regex
Boost.Serialization
Boost.Signals
Boost.Thread
Boost.Wave
A few libraries have optional separately-compiled binaries:
Boost.DateTime has a binary component that is only needed if you're using its to_string/from_string or serialization features, or if you're targeting Visual C++ 6.x or Borland.
Boost.Graph also has a binary component that is only needed if you intend to parse GraphViz files.
Boost.Test can be used in “header-only” or “separately compiled” mode, although separate compilation is recommended for serious use.
So, if you're using one of the listed libraries, use the Getting Started guide to, well, get you started on compiling and linking to Boost.
The Boost website has some good tutorials, they are just kind of hidden.
The library documentation is a mixed bag. Some is good, but some is more of a reference than a guide. The best guide to (some of) the Boost libraries is the book Beyond the C++ Standard Library. At the very least, the introduction gives one paragraph descriptions of many of the libraries. From there, you can decide which library is most important for your current needs, and, if it's in the book, read the chapter on it, or read the documentation on the website.
If you read German, there's a good online guide. Google translate does a good enough job that a non-speaker like me can understand it.
Also, unless you have lots of experience with C++, I'd start with the simpler libraries (e.g. smart_ptr, tuple, conversion, tokenizer, regex, date_time, test), before trying the more complicated ones (bind, variant, any), or the really advanced ones (concepts, MPL, Fusion).
Using Easypeasy 1.1 (for netbooks) which is based upon Ubuntu I was able to use Synaptic Package Manager to install, I believe, libboost-dev. Then simply by adding:
#include "boost/foreach.hpp"
I was able to replace the existing lines in an existing application (which has an Ask class which has nothing to do with boost):
for (std::vector<Ask*>::iterator ii=ui.begin(); ii!=ui.end(); ++ii)
std::cout << (*ii)->prompt() << (*ii)->answer() << std::endl;
with:
BOOST_FOREACH (Ask* ii, ui)
std::cout << ii->prompt() << ii->answer() << std::endl;
As I understand it this is a header only feature. I have not used anything requiring link time changes yet.
I was just looking at that german boost guide, and found there was an english one as well (same book). It looks pretty good, have just read the introductory pages which are quite useful
The best tutorial I've read so far are those two books:
Introduction to the Boost C++ Libraries; Volume I - Foundations
Introduction to the Boost C++ Libraries; Volume II - Advanced Libraries
The libraries come with documentation and many of them have tutorials as part of the documentation. Just start reading.
Boost is not a programming language nor an application framework - because it's just a collection of libraries, there is no such thing as a Boost 'Hello World' program. Most libraries in Boost can be used more or less independently, and they vary in size from one function to massive libraries that could stand alone.
The best way to get to know Boost is simply to try and work it in as you write new code. Use smart_ptr whenever you can; use the MPL next time you want to do compile-time work. There's a lot of variety in Boost, but you should probably start looking at the Utility section; those are the lightest-weight and most commonly-used libraries.
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:
Without a good library, most interesting tasks are hard to do in
C++; but given a good library, almost any task can be made easy
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.
Take a look at http://www.boost.org/doc/tools.html. Specifically the bcp utility would come in handy if you would like to embed your boost-dependencies into your project. An excerpt from the web site:
"The bcp utility is a tool for extracting subsets of Boost, it's useful for Boost authors who want to distribute their library separately from Boost, and for Boost users who want to distribute a subset of Boost with their application.bcp can also report on which parts of Boost your code is dependent on, and what licences are used by those dependencies."
Of course this could have some drawbacks - but at least you should be aware of the possibility to do so.
I used to be extremely wary of introducing dependencies to systems, but now I find that dependencies are not a big deal. Modern operating systems come with package managers that can often automatically resolve dependencies or, at least,make it very easy for administrators to install what is needed. For instance, Boost is available under Gentoo-Postage as dev-libs/boost and under FreeBSD ports as devel/boost.
Modern open source software builds a lot on other systems. In a recent study, by tracking the dependencies of the FreeBSD packages, we established that the 12,357 ports packages in our FreeBSD 4.11 system, had in total 21,135 library dependencies; i.e., they required a library, other than the 52 libraries that are part of the base system, in order to compile. The library dependencies comprised 688 different libraries, while the number of different external libraries used by a single project varied between 1 and 38, with a mode value of 2. Furthermore, 5,117 projects used at least one external library and 405 projects used 10 or more.
In the end the answer to your question will come from a cost versus benefit analysis. Is the benefit of re-using a mature, widely used, reviewed, and tested library like Boost and larger than the low and falling cost of a dependency? For any non-trivial use of Boost's facilities the answer is that you should go ahead and use Boost.
It depends. If you're using a header file only defined class template in Boost - then yes go ahead and use it because it doesn't suck in any Boost shared library, as all the code is generated at compile time with no external dependencies. Versioning problems are a pain for any shared c++ library, and Boost is not immune from this, so if you can avoid the problem altogether it's a good thing.
The benefits of using boost when writing C++ code that they significantly outweigh the extra complexity of distributing the open source code.
I work on Programmer's Notepad and the code takes a dependency on boost for test, smart pointers, and python integration. There have been a couple of complaints due to the requirement, but most will just get on with it if they want to work on the code. Taking the boost dependency was a decision I have never regretted.
To make the complexity slightly less for others, I include versioned pre-built libraries for boost python so that all they need to do is provide boost in their include directories.
KDE also depends on Boost.
However it mostly depends on your goals, and even more so on your target audience, rather than the scope of your project. for example TinyJSON (very small project), is almost 100% Boost, but thats fine because the API it provides is Boost-like and targeted at Boost programmers that need JSON bindings. However many other JSON libraries don't use Boost because they target other audiences.
On the other hand I can't use Boost at work, and I know lots of other developers (in their day jobs) are in the same boat. So I guess you could say if your Target is OpenSource, and a group that uses Boost, go ahead. If you target enterprise you might want to think it over and copy-paste just the necessary parts from Boost(and commit to their support) for your project to work.
Edit: The reason we can't use it at work is because our software has
to be portable to about 7 different
platforms and across 4 compilers. So
we can't use boost because it hasn't
been proven to be compatible with
all our targets, so the reason is a
technical one. (We're fine with the
OpenSource and Boost License part,
as we use Boost for other things at
times)
I would say yes. Both Mandriva (Red Hat based) and Ubuntu (Debian based) have packages for the Boost libriaries.
I think the extensive functionality that Boost provides and, as you say, it is the standard non-standard C++ library justifies it as a dependency.
Unfortunately yes, for ubuntu they're readily available but for RHEL 4&5 I've almost always ended up making them from tarballs. They're great libraries, just really big... like using a rail spike when sometimes all you really need is a thumbtack.
It all depends on the way you're going to use Boost. As Diomidis said, if you're going to use some non-trivial facilities from Boost, just go ahead. Using libraries is not a crime.
Of course, there are many people who prefer not to use Boost, because introducing new dependencies has always some cons and extra worries, but in an open source project... in my opinion it's even alright to use them if you just want to learn them or improve your skills on them.