[boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform Neutrality-withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 17:08:05

>"Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>news:0a7e01c23cc4$5e5d61f0$1800000a_at_soy...
>
> Please explain how boost users are supposed to maintain a level of
> confidence in the safety of this foundation that is aimed at addressing
> the impotence of C++ itself, by providing things that were left out of the
> standard, when the communities own design philosophies are brutally
> ignored by its own members.

Umm...what?  The way I read that is: "My way or the highway".  Boost
libraries are often built by consensus, so if you can't get a large number
of people to agree with you or support your implementation, there's
probably a good reason.  The nice thing is that the Boost licensing is
so liberal that if you must have it a certain way, you are free to modify it
however you like.

> Boost doesn't stand to make any profit, so then why doesn't it stand
> on it's principles above the alternatives? It seems that upon examination,
> boost is going the way of all other open projects that exist. This is
> leading me to believe that inspecting of OpenSceneGraph, which also
> provides an image of holding high-standards, will prove the same.

What way is that?  You can't please all the people all the time.  I think
overall, Boost does a pretty decent job of pleasing most of the people
most of the time.  I don't think you can expect much more than that from
any project.

Dave