Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

robust, easy to debug and rich data structure library in C++


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
3 replies to this topic

#1 rzcodeman   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:41 AM

Hello there,
For a distributed network management project I am looking for a
data structure library which is:
- robust
- easy to use and debug
- covering more data structure such as various kind of tree, hash tables, etc

What are your suggestions?

Regards,
Sivo

Sponsor:

#2 clb   Members   -  Reputation: 1781

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:50 AM

We use data structures from boost and Qt in our projects. They are robust, somewhat easy to use, Qt ones tend to be a easier than boost's, which is much due to the sorry state of documentation in boost, compared to Qt. Neither of them are particularly easy to debug, at least from VS. Qt has an installable plugin to VS which is supposed to bring debug visualizers (autoexp.dat support) to it, but none of the systems I've installed it on has had it working.

If you only want data structures though, both boost and Qt may be quite a lot of overkill for that purpose only.
Me+PC=clb.demon.fi | C++ Math and Geometry library: MathGeoLib, test it live! | C++ Game Networking: kNet | 2D Bin Packing: RectangleBinPack | Use gcc/clang/emcc from VS: vs-tool | Resume+Portfolio | gfxapi, test it live!

#3 ApochPiQ   Moderators   -  Reputation: 15698

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:22 PM

Which data structures do you need support for?

#4 wood_brian   Banned   -  Reputation: 197

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

We use data structures from boost and Qt in our projects. They are robust, somewhat easy to use, Qt ones tend to be a easier than boost's, which is much due to the sorry state of documentation in boost,


Which Boost containers do you think are poorly documented? I'm familiar with the Intrusive containers and multi_index_container and the documentation for those libraries is imo very good.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS