Add recommendations for option parsing
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 110
- Forks
- 17
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
In C++ my experience says:
- If it is okay to use boost, use boost::program_options, it is a solid library.
- It is often not okay to use boost. The headers alone are > 50 MB 🙀 and contain > 13,000 files. And boost::program_options requires linking a precompiled library. This is massive weight and complexity for a build system just to parse options.
- So for lightweight C++ libs that might not otherwise have any dependencies we need to recommend a very lightweight option parsing solution.
/cc @GretaCB @joto @mapbox/core-tech @danpat
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Research lightweight C++ option-parsing solutions and compare their dependency, header, and linking costs against the stated constraints. Done means documenting a clear recommendation for lightweight C++ libraries, while noting when boost::program_options remains appropriate.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- cli
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100