Pros of STL

• Comprehensive implementation of the C++ Standard Template Library
• Regularly updated and maintained by Microsoft
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of STL

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex to navigate
• May include features beyond basic double conversion functionality
• Potentially higher memory footprint due to broader scope

Code Comparison

STL (from <charconv> header):

double value;
std::from_chars(str.data(), str.data() + str.size(), value);

double-conversion:

double value;
int processed_chars;
StringToDoubleConverter::StringToDouble(str.c_str(), str.length(), &processed_chars, &value);

Summary

STL offers a comprehensive C++ library implementation, while double-conversion focuses specifically on efficient number-to-string and string-to-number conversions. STL provides broader functionality but may be more complex, whereas double-conversion is more specialized and potentially easier to integrate for specific conversion tasks. The code comparison shows that STL uses a more modern C++ approach with std::from_chars, while double-conversion uses a custom converter class.

Pros of abseil-cpp

• Broader scope: Offers a comprehensive set of C++ library components
• Active development: More frequent updates and contributions
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of abseil-cpp

• Larger codebase: May increase compilation time and binary size
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

abseil-cpp:

#include "absl/strings/str_cat.h"
#include "absl/time/time.h"

std::string result = absl::StrCat("Time: ", absl::FormatTime(absl::Now()));

double-conversion:

#include "double-conversion/double-conversion.h"

char buffer[128];
double_conversion::DoubleToStringConverter::EcmaScriptConverter().ToFixed(3.14159, 2, buffer, sizeof(buffer));

Summary

abseil-cpp is a more comprehensive C++ library with a wider range of features, while double-conversion focuses specifically on efficient number-to-string and string-to-number conversions. abseil-cpp offers more functionality but comes with a larger footprint, whereas double-conversion is lightweight and specialized. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and the need for additional C++ utilities beyond number conversions.

Pros of Boost

• Comprehensive library collection: Boost offers a wide range of C++ libraries for various purposes, not limited to just number conversion
• Well-established and widely used: Boost has a large community and is often considered a de facto standard in C++ development
• Regular updates and maintenance: Boost is actively developed and maintained by a dedicated team

Cons of Boost

• Large footprint: Including Boost in a project can significantly increase its size, which may be unnecessary for simple conversion tasks
• Steeper learning curve: Due to its extensive feature set, Boost can be more complex to learn and use compared to more focused libraries
• Potential overhead: Some Boost libraries may introduce performance overhead for simple operations

Code Comparison

double-conversion:

#include <double-conversion/double-conversion.h>

double_conversion::DoubleToStringConverter converter(flags, infinity_symbol, nan_symbol, exponent_character, decimal_in_shortest_low, decimal_in_shortest_high, max_leading_padding_zeroes_in_precision_mode, max_trailing_padding_zeroes_in_precision_mode);
char buffer[128];
double_conversion::StringBuilder builder(buffer, sizeof(buffer));
converter.ToShortest(value, &builder);

Boost:

#include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>

std::string result = boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(value);

Pros of fmt

• Broader functionality: fmt is a comprehensive formatting library, while double-conversion focuses solely on floating-point conversion
• Modern C++ design: fmt utilizes C++11 features and beyond, offering a more contemporary API
• Active development: fmt has more frequent updates and a larger community

Cons of fmt

• Larger library size: fmt includes more features, potentially increasing binary size
• Learning curve: fmt's extensive API may require more time to master compared to double-conversion's focused functionality

Code Comparison

fmt:

#include <fmt/core.h>
std::string s = fmt::format("{:.2f}", 3.14159);

double-conversion:

#include <double-conversion/double-conversion.h>
char buffer[32];
double_conversion::DoubleToStringConverter::EcmaScriptConverter().ToFixed(3.14159, 2, buffer, sizeof(buffer));

Summary

fmt is a versatile formatting library with a modern C++ design, while double-conversion specializes in efficient floating-point conversions. fmt offers more features but may have a larger footprint, whereas double-conversion provides a focused solution for specific use cases. Choose based on your project's requirements and performance constraints.

Pros of json

• Broader functionality: json is a full-featured JSON library, while double-conversion focuses solely on number conversion
• More active development: json has more recent updates and a larger community
• Header-only library: Easier integration into projects

Cons of json

• Larger codebase: More complex and potentially slower for specific number conversion tasks
• Higher memory usage: Due to its comprehensive JSON handling capabilities

Code Comparison

json:

#include <nlohmann/json.hpp>
using json = nlohmann::json;

json j = {{"pi", 3.141}, {"happy", true}};
std::string s = j.dump();

double-conversion:

#include <double-conversion/double-conversion.h>

char buffer[128];
double_conversion::DoubleToStringConverter::EcmaScriptConverter().ToFixed(3.141, 3, buffer, sizeof(buffer));

While json provides a more comprehensive JSON handling solution, double-conversion offers a lightweight and specialized approach for number conversion. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project, with json being more suitable for general JSON processing and double-conversion excelling in efficient number-to-string conversions.

Pros of spdlog

• Comprehensive logging functionality with multiple sinks and formatters
• Header-only library, making it easy to integrate into projects
• Supports asynchronous logging for improved performance

Cons of spdlog

• Larger codebase and potentially higher memory footprint
• May have a steeper learning curve due to more features and options

Code Comparison

spdlog:

#include "spdlog/spdlog.h"

int main() {
    spdlog::info("Welcome to spdlog!");
    spdlog::error("An error message with format: {}", 42);
    return 0;
}

double-conversion:

#include "double-conversion/double-conversion.h"

int main() {
    double_conversion::DoubleToStringConverter converter(flags, infinity_symbol, nan_symbol, 10, 0, 0, 0, 0);
    char buffer[128];
    double_conversion::StringBuilder builder(buffer, sizeof(buffer));
    converter.ToShortest(3.14159, &builder);
    return 0;
}

Summary

spdlog is a feature-rich logging library, while double-conversion focuses specifically on efficient number-to-string and string-to-number conversions. spdlog offers more comprehensive logging capabilities but may be overkill for projects that only need simple number formatting. double-conversion is more specialized and lightweight, making it a better choice for projects primarily concerned with efficient numeric conversions.