Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 19:14:00
On 2/1/2011 1:05 AM, Matthias Schabel wrote:
>> What's the point of comparison when you say "more" effective?
>> How do you measure effectivity in the first place? As far as
>> I know, Boost produces top notch libraries that are more effective
>> than even a thousand GIT hosted open source libraries out there.
> OTOH, there are a number of large domains where Boost does not
> compete, either at all or effectively : ITK, VTK, FFTW, ATLAS are a few
> open-source projects I have personally used and have found to be
> substantially easier to deal with than Boost. That being said, I have
> no doubt that Boost expertise could be very profitably applied in
> those problem domains.
Sure, Boost may be lacking in some areas. But in general, you can't
deny that the ability of Boost to produce top notch libraries is
unparalleled in the domain of C++.
>> As an analogy, an instant camera in the hands of a pro will produce
>> superb results, while a top of the line DSLR camera in the hands
>> of an amateur will never reach the same level of quality.
> Unfortunately, it is extremely rare for the genius camera engineer to also
> be a genius photographer, and vice versa... It is a little egotistical to believe
> that one's facility and expertise in one area extends to another
> completely different one.
Agreed. Those are very good points.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com
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