3 ms·

Much of boost's compilation time is a result of being so template-heavy. It's still got to parse and do much of the generic processing, even if you don't actua

Much of boost's compilation time is a result of being so template-heavy. It's still got to parse and do much of the generic processing, even if you don't actually instantiate a template. Whether boost's style is the pinnacle of elegance or ugly as sin is still somewhat in contention, but no one wants to re-write it. I am some what put off as some one who started with C, but most of the C++ people reference it regularly as an excellent example of code style and structure.

Const-me 7y ago
Microsoft's ATL and WTL are comparable to parts of standard library and boost. They build very fast, despite also based on templates. Often run much faster too, e.g. CAtlMap is typically faster than std::unordered_map by an order of magnitude, due to cache friendliness. The only downside, it's Windows only.