From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-16 21:54:22
> I may be misreading this but I think you missed a subtle point. The
> installation tools (make, install_shield, ...) usually *are* part of
> the base install.
No, I wasn't counting the build of the boost library as part of the
"install". Regardless, make isn't part of the Windows "platform" (neither
is IE for that matter :)
> > However, there are some commercial organizations that won't use boost if
> > they have to COMPILE it.
> That is part of what platform specific binaries are made for.
> > In addition, some organizations have policies
> > against using libraries if they can't PAY someone for support.
> That is part of what survice oriented companies that package, ship, and
> support public domain produces (Like RedHad, SuSE, etc.) are for...
Agreed, but boost (at least currently) is delivered as a source only library
and no one provides support. As a result, some organizations won't use it.
Does that mean boost should start building binaries tomorrow? Surely not.
My point was that John was ruling out tools like Python because some
organizations might not use boost as a result. In my opinion these same
commercial organizations probably wouldn't use boost until they had binaries
and support contracts available.
Anyway, we seem to be drifting away from the topic of a directory
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk