Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: Braden McDaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 22:29:05

On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:21, bill_kempf wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> > bill_kempf wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> > > > bill_kempf wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't disagree.  There was a bit of humor in what I said 
> (see
> > > the
> > > > > winky?).  However, the consumers of Boost are developers and
> > > should
> > > > > be able to easily deal with the installation of headers.
> > > >
> > > > This is not true.
> > > >
> > > > Boost becomes part of the required source code for any project 
> that
> > > uses
> > > > it. If the project is distributed in source form, anyone who
> > > installs it
> > > > has to install Boost too, just like they have to install any 
> other
> > > > library the project depends on. For other libraries that's not a
> > > > problem, because we can count on them being available in 
> autoconf
> > > and/or
> > > > rpm form.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I have to admit I'm used to a different model of
> > > installation/distribution.  You are correct that some "consumers"
> > > will not actually be developers.
> > 
> > For "some" read "the overwhelming majority".
> > 
> > Of the three groups of people who need to be able to install it --
> > closed source developers (you), open source developers (me), and 
> open
> > source users -- the third group certainly outnumbers the first two 
> put
> > together by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> 1) It's a new phenomenon that the third group even exists.

Hardly. The popularity of free Unix derivatives just makes that group
bigger and thus more difficult to ignore.

> 2) Group 3 isn't actually a consumer of Boost... they are a consumer 
> of group 2's efforts, so one could argue that it's the responsibility 
> of group 2 to handle this

I tend to consider anyone who needs to download, install, and use my
software a consumer of that software. What definition of consumer are
you using?

> (I'm not going quite that far, though the 
> truth is they can and should do this until Boost can settle on a 
> usable solution).

That's not the "truth". Its your opinion, and one that's clearly colored
by the different requirements of closed-source development. The fact is
that doing as you describe results in a *lot* of duplicated work. In
general, open source developers try to avoid duplicating work.

I think it's unreasonable to ask that Boost users go to all this trouble
while Boost searches for a "perfect" solution, while an
imperfect-but-adequate solution could solve a large class of problems
and keep from imposing all that work.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <braden_at_[hidden]>
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <braden_at_[hidden]>