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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk