Re: Boost vs Std library features (was: Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th)

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 02:24:19

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:34 PM Peter Dimov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Jeff Garland wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:36 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> > boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > So
> > > **PLEASE** Boost keep doing what it's doing, keep standardising
> > > standardised library facilities, because you're a hell of a lot better
> > > at it than WG21 in my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > We still do a bit of that, but mostly not because most proposals simply
> > bypass boost at this point.
>
> This hasn't been working very well for WG21. The trend is towards
> proposals named P00xxR38 with quality often not matching the average
> rejected Boost library.
>
> LEWG is not an efficient mechanism for designing libraries, because
> iterating here is vastly faster and better than iterating at WG21 meetings.

I agree with the conclusion that WG21 should stop designing libraries.
And should also stop contemplating non-foundational libraries. But
until there's a reasonable library ecosystem using STD as a
distribution mechanism will continue. Boost happens to be one of the
better such ecosystem distribution mechanisms, still.

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net