Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 11:13:41
On 24 Nov 2011, at 14:56, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> I don't get why broken code (whether code using Phoenix or Local)
> should be the basis for whether a library is superior to another as
> far as end-user experiences is concerned. It's broken code, it doesn't
> even compile!
Because I have spent more than 10 minutes figuring why Phoenix code wouldn't compile, and that hasn't happened with any other C++ library. In general, when writing code programmers spend much more time with code which is either compile-time, or run-time, incorrect. If I wrote perfect code first time, then my job would be much, much easier! It is the compiler's fault, but in practice, it makes the library very, very hard to use.
Personally, if boost local was accepted I would expect to use it for a year or so, until I could assume people I work with all had decent C++11 compilers, and then drop it for lambdas. I'm never going to start using boost::phoenix in code I share with other people.
Is that a good enough reason to accept it into boost? I'm not completely sure.
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