Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-22 07:43:41

On 21 May 2014 at 18:06, John Maddock wrote:

> >> On 21 May 2014 at 15:45, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >> > I don't understand. Who are those hypothetical people holding back >
> >> interesting new development?
> >>
> >> Start reading at:
> >>
> >> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/c-11-td4648532.html
> >
> > That was a year ago, and it's just words. If I decide to write a new
> > C++11-only library, archived messages in a year-old mailing list thread
> > will not stop me.
> 
> I agree, it seems to me there is a great deal of hyperbole here: is 
> Boost really dead and/or being held back?  Frankly I don't see it.

The statements were not made without evidence.

See the slides at
 
https://github.com/boostcon/cppnow_presentations_2014/blob/master/file
s/change_ripple.pdf?raw=true

See the position paper at

https://github.com/boostcon/cppnow_presentations_2014/blob/master/file
s/large_code_base_change_ripple_in_cpp.pdf?raw=true

As Robert Ramey pointed out in the talk, the values for boost-users 
could be a chimera. We need some figures for the popularity of boost 
related questions on stackoverflow. I may do this for C++ Now 2015.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/