[edit] Really Should be a Database

There are so many libraries for C++, that this flat list really doesn't scale well for anything that even gets to 10% of comprehensive. The Avaukabke C++ Libraries FAQ is an existing database of C++ libraries. While the web front end leaves something to be desired (it's basically a hacked up PHP script) and is the work of a single person, it is a good starting point for a "package repository" for C++, at least as far as linking and describing libraries goes. We should collaborate with Nikki Locke who maintains the libraries FAQ, the database and the web front-end. A new such front-end could be hosted on without it being a bunch of mediawiki pages. --Legalize (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2015 (PDT)

How would a cppreference user add/remove a library in such database? Links to other (especially better organized) library repositories would certainly be a good thing, though, feel free to put that one in. Also, rather than scaling, I believe the most value for a library list would come from pruning, or at least providing a way to hide the libraries that aren't maintained or have unsuitable licenses. --Cubbi (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2015 (PDT)
If it was an external web application, users would add/update through whatever means were provided by that application. If the web application were hosted on, then there may be a way to share credentials between the application and mediawiki. If this is intended to be a curated list of libraries that meet some criteria, then IMO we need to create a page that lists the defining criteria in order to be listed. However, I think you'll still find that the library list is going to get really long -- this is a good problem to have! --Legalize (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2015 (PDT)

[edit] Splitting up boost

I see that boost containers are now listed on their own. Should we split up the rest of boost as well? boost.asio, boost.GIL, BGL, and boost.Spirit are a lot more notable (there's a book written just on BGL) than boost.heap or boost.bimap. --Cubbi 14:58, 21 August 2012 (PDT)

Yes, of course. I've created these sections only to see how they would look like, so any presentation issues could be solved. -- P12 15:02, 21 August 2012 (PDT)

[edit] Graphic Libraries link consistency

FTLK and GTKmm projects links point on home page, whereas Qt link directly point on documention (and avoid user find useful info such how to get it or license, etc). Shouldn't the current link ( be replaced by ? Deronnax 06:56, 12 October 2012 (PDT)

Feel free to change or add links. The {{lib}} template already allows to specify different links for the project page, download page and documentation page.

[edit] Pure C++, STL-free libraries

C++ gets a lot of undeserved hate from programmers working on bare-metal and other resource constrained systems - mostly because free and good C++/RTOS libraries are far and between. There is also no place to list them.

I hope the Embedded section will alleviate that sometime. A lot of those are not-so-free licensed (usually dual GPL) or hidden behind silly EULA forms, hope that will not be a problem. Ezdiy (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2013 (PDT)

I concur that it's worth to have Embedded section. However, I'm don't think adding libraries that can't be quickly evaluated (i.e. needs any additional step than just clicking download link) is a good idea. There are plenty of commercial options for each open-source library and we don't want to list them all. The requirement of available source seems to be a good compromise for now. --P12 11:18, 22 September 2013 (PDT)

[edit] Qt lib is more than only graphics

Why has Qt so few place in this list? It mostly covers 10 categories and is quite complete.

(I was searching a Qt5 review since C++11 and C++14 are released)