Re: [boost] Re: Anyone planning a compression library?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-16 12:53:56

At 02:24 AM 2/16/2001 +0000, jeff_at_[hidden] wrote:

 >As much as I enjoy them, it sounds like the developer pictures should
 >be eliminated.

We can move them out of the download packages, but I don't want to 
eliminate them from the web site.  People are really important to the Boost 
process, and if anything I'd like to see an increase in the number of 
contributors included.

 >> Presumably part of the formal review for any library that depends
 >on a
 >> non-Boost library would include pros and cons of the dependency.
 >Thus
 >> there is a protection against a detrimental dependency on a non-
 >boost
 >> library, but a mechanism to avoid reinventing the wheel if linking
 >to
 >> another library really is the smart thing to do.
 >
 >Makes sense to me.  It is clearly a judgment which needs to be
 >evaluated on a case by case basis.  Perhaps the policy should be
 >updated to say something like: Use of external libraries is generally
 >discouraged.  However, given compatible licensing policies, broad
 >availability, and demonstration of needless reinvention of stable
 >code exceptions can be made.

Let's see what others say, but so far that feels good to me.

It's like so many other engineering trade-offs.  You look at the 
costs.  You looks at the benefits.  You decide which outweighs the 
other.  And with Boost, that decision is public so others can question you 
if they think your analysis is flawed.  Then you move forward.

--Beman

--Beman