From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-18 12:35:27
"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>| -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andy Little
> | Sent: 18 September 2006 15:48
> | To: boost_at_[hidden]
> | Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Units feedback
> | I am now starting to find this attitude of publicly ignoring
> | my work, especially
> | while many of the *Units* efforts are privately borrowing
> | ideas from it downright offensive.
> | http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/quan
> | regards
> | Andy Little
> I'm very sorry that you found this offensive - it wasn't intended - and you
> may remember that I supported your proposal at the recent review. I was
> only saying that I personally didn't feel the essential requirements should
> not be set too high.
> Your considerable and commendable efforts on this project meet the same
> chicken and egg problem - I feel that you haven't yet got a reasonably
> representative base of reasonably contented users - and I suspect that an
> important reason for this is that it isn't a Boost library yet. How to solve
> this conundrum, I just don't know.
To be honest I am not expecting a huge number of contented users just now.
Firstly and most importantly Quan is as stated in the docs only in Alpha status
and there is a big warning that the library isnt yet intended to be stable.
There has been a huge interface change between version 01 and version 02. I was
somewhat reluctant to do as I know that users won't appreciate it. PQS in the
past had way too many interface changes too.
Secondly the Quan mailing list is knackered, always has been and I suspect
always will be. At some stage I hope to move the project off sourceforge. Anyway
if you are using that as a popularity guage then don't bother. Recently I think
most download have been CVS, but again the stats for that are as they always
have been and I guess always will be "currently unavailable".
I'm sorry to say that I think that somebody *important* for whatever reason just
doesnt want my library in Boost, and so the above just now sounds to me is just
the next reason that is being touted as a way to keep it out.
OTOH there is a need for something like Quan, but nothing in the Units directory
yet comes close to Quan. (I would be very happy if anything did...)
> Another important difficulty is lack of agreement over the scope of the
> project(s), as recent long discussions have shown. Nor the compile time
> cost that can be endured.
Obviously that second remark re compile time is not from actual experience of
downloading and trying out my library, and that Really annoys me! Please make
judgements about Quan based on testing , not on myths or the compile time
performance of other Units libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk