Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: Braden McDaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-23 00:27:22

On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 23:30, Chris Little wrote:
> on 2/22/02 10:29 PM, Braden McDaniel at braden_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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,
> 
> I think you have to remember that Boost's goals aren't necessarily yours.

Of course not.

> Boost is an experiment in leading edge C++ design.  The goal isn't
> necessarily to create a library that integrates well into your unix centric
> view of software development.  In fact there isn't a required set of
> platforms that an implementor need to support.

The success of this project will be measured to a large degree by the
size of its user base--like most any other project. This is about making
Boost usable. That's all.

> If you want to use Boost in one of your projects then I think that it is up
> to you to provide integration for your users.  It is not as if Boost makes
> any guarantees about binary or source compatibility (although as a community
> I would hope that we minimize the amount we break things while evolve them)
> so any project you make will have to bound to a particular Boost version
> anyways.

This is par for the course for open source projects. It may be novel
from your perspective; it is not from mine.

> I was happy to see that you have finally volunteered to produce the scripts
> that say you need for your uses.

You say that like I was reluctant. That is a misrepresentation. When
this thread started, it was not clear that an autotools build would be
accepted into Boost even if it was offered. In fact, I think one could
reasonably conclude that it would be rejected based on threads prior to
this one. Fortunately, it now looks like an autotools build would be
accepted. That's all I've ever wanted.

>  Not only because hopefully it will end
> this thread but also it showed that you have stepped forward in the open
> source tradition you have been promoting and decided to do the work to fix
> something that you want changed instead of just complaining about it.

It may be self-satisfying to characterize the autotools crowd as a bunch
of complainers. But in doing so you ignore the "Let them eat Jam" policy
that led to this thread. That's changed, and so on this much we agree:
Let's move on. I'm looking forward to seeing Timothy Shead's submission.

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