C++ library comparison: Boost and Tr1

Question

Which is more robust? Coz I read Linus Torvalds 's article about how bad is boost. Is that tr1 is better than boost?

"Linus said it's bad" is a textbook fallacy of argument from authority, y'know. Could you cite that article? Perhaps it was this from 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/ ? — Jim Balter, Mar 12 '11 at 05:54
Linus says that C++ is bad, because he cannot find any good C++ programmers to work for him. Some of us believe this has nothing to do with the language. — Bo Persson, Mar 12 '11 at 06:14

score 9 · Accepted Answer · answered Mar 12 '11 at 00:48

TR1 is a set of libraries that were proposed additions to the C++ Standard Library. Most of them originated in Boost and most of them are now included in the latest C++0x draft standard.

There are some differences between different versions of the Boost implementations of the libraries, the TR1 specification of the libraries, and the latest C++0x specification, but the fundamentals are largely the same.

Linus Torvalds vocally hates C++ as a whole and his ranting about C++ should not be taken seriously. The Boost libraries are extraordinarily useful.

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Mar 12 '11 at 00:51

Your question doesn't make much sense, since Boost includes the TR1 additions, which in turn are mostly based on libraries that were born in Boost itself (the Boost implementation of TR1 can be seen somehow as an "informal reference implementation"); thus, I wouldn't know how to say "which is better", since it's all mostly the same.

By the way, I wouldn't listen too much to Linus Torvalds about these facts, he is quite biased against C++ in general, and almost anything he writes about it degenerates in generic rant.

C++ library comparison: Boost and Tr1

2 Answers2