[boost] Surviving discussion [was: Re: Traits-based design and ODR]

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-05 16:14:03

At 11:16 AM 5/3/2002, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 >> By "we" I meant "us".  That is, Boost.  And our style of
 >> negotiation tends toward vigorous, exaggerated argument,
 >> which is half the fun of it all.  Especially when, in the
 >> end, we find ourselves in violent agreement.
 >
 >It's true it might be fun to some. Something has to be said, though.
 >
 >The drawback is that it tends to scare off many. This has the
 >unfortunate potential effect of admitting libraries from people with
 >better negotiating/marketing/debating skills, rather than libraries
 >that are technically better.
 >
 >For what it's worth, following my post "Adding Loki to Boost:
 >reprise", in which I kindly ask for Boost's help in adopting Loki, I
 >got many private emails from several categories of people: (1) some
 >who have had a library admitted into Boost and who wished me good
 >luck, mentioning that they are too corroded by the admission process
 >to be able to post anything in Loki's favor; (2) some who do
 >participate to boost's discussions sometimes and promised technical
 >help, /if I make it through the debate process alone/, (3) lurkers
 >(some of whom are prominent in the C++ community) who wished me luck
 >as well, but told me that I am alone in posting, because they can't
 >cope with the debate anymore.

As several have pointed out, Boost is a much friendlier place than the C++ 
committee can be.

Anyone put off by the kind of discussion here shouldn't even think of 
submitting anything for standardization.

I'm afraid the specter of having to publicly defend a library does scare 
away good candidates sometimes.

But look at the effect the Boost discussion is having on both shared_ptr 
and smart_ptr.  Both are getting better.

--Beman