boost VS llvm-project

coost is a cross-platform C++ basic library with both performance and ease of use. It is like boost, but much smaller, the static library built on linux and mac is only about 1MB in size. Although small, it provides enough powerful features:

Not so much ease, as flexibility.

In the end, the thing that matters the most for software is being able to get logic into code as efficiently as possible. This includes being able to write concise code, being able to execute it and see results, debug it efficiently, use libraries easily, and deploy it to production. Python has all of this.

The rest of the stuff, like strong typing, memory safety, e.t.c are at best academic. The supposed advantages of those just don't hold up once you start to look into the real world. Linux, which runs on most devices that support an os hardware wise, is written purely in C. Python is used as a backend for very big projects like Youtube, Instagram, Spotify, e.t.c. Its also used to run Openpilot (https://github.com/commaai/openpilot), which has performance on par with Teslas autopilot.

Meanwhile in Java world, with strict typing, you have egregious vulnerabilities like log4shell, amongst others (https://java-0day.com/).

Language evolution is also a thing to look at with this stuff. The more "strict" you try to make a language, the worse its going to become as people are necessarily going to find hacks around it. With java, type safety strict features like having getters and setters get abstracted away behind an annotation processor that hacks the AST (Lombok), and thats not only considered ok, but is encouraged to be used. With C++, template metaprogramming got extremely out of hand with https://www.boost.org/, where the error messages for one thing used to be pages long. Rust manage to sneak this under the radar with the unsafe clause, which is going to see standard use in many codebases, thus negating any of its advantages.

In the end, good code comes from good developers, full stop. Every codebase will necessarily have tests for production deployment, and anything that language features don't catch during compilation or static checking can be checked with testing if you have developers that understand what they are doing and can write appropriate testing frameworks.

And based on that, its pretty attractive to use Python especially when you consider developer time. And the flexibility means you can write your code in different forms to suit your use case, where it be OOP with MyPy type checking, functional, imperative, or super complex if you want.

For those who didn't know what is Boost, it's a C++ library that helps to prevent re-inventing the wheel while trying to program something quite complex as example looping only with macro, Boost Preprocessor. Fortunately, Boost Preprocessor Repeat also works with plain C, not only C++. So, my OrangePi board can calculate hash at compile-time. Unfortunately, my SIX Hash algorithm requires sizeof(input) and Boost... won't... work... with it. Hours of workarounds, no luck.

If you have the ability to use third-party libraries (though if you can't this project is going to be a nightmare, lol...) I would recommend using the Beast library from the Boost collection of libraries. It's a little bit more verbose than some options, but not that much more, and it's better maintained. REST webservices are built on top of the HTTP framework, so it's just a matter of sending a HTTP GET request to a server (or POST/UPDATE/DELETE, depending on how exactly the api on the other end is implemented) and reading the response you get back. This is a very basic sample of a client sending a GET request to a server. If you need to change this to do a POST (or some other kind of request), there's only two real changes that need to be made:

The person you replied to used slightly confusing terminology. Conda deals with non-python packages. As in if you wanted to install boost for C++.

I'm not sure if its just me but I'm finding I can't access any of the download links on the Boost Website.

rich standard library and Boost;

Boost is also another ubiquitous library. Lots of code that doesn't make it into the standard kind of ends up here. Lots of code that gets into the standard starts here. Boost.Asio might end up being our network API in 23.

'Computer Architeture: A Quantitative Apporach" and/or more specific design types (mips, arm, etc) can be found under the Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architeture and Design.

"Getting Started with LLVM Core Libraries: Get to Grips With Llvm Essentials and Use the Core Libraries to Build Advanced Tools "

"The Architecture of Open Source Applications (Volume 1) : LLVM" https://aosabook.org/en/v1/llvm.html

"Tourist Guide to LLVM source code" : https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1453

llvm home page : https://llvm.org/

llvm tutorial : https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/

llvm reference : https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html

learn by examples : C source code to 'llvm' bitcode : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9148890/how-to-make-clan...

See

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344

https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...

You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.

> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.

Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...

Through value tracking. It's actually LLVM that does this, GCC probably does it as well, so in theory explicit bounds checks in regular C code would also be removed by the compiler.

How it works exactly I don't know, and apparently it's so complex that it requires over 9000 lines of C++ to express:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Anal...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/docs/F2...

• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift