From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 17:24:33
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform
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.
Eric, you need to watch your tone here. Using words like "impotence" and
"brutally" make this come across as a flame, not a constructive e-mail.
Continue with this tone and I'll simply stop responding to you.
Again, baseless accusations don't help anyone. If I've "brutally ignored"
the "communities own design philosophies" then you'll have to point out
chapter and verse of the design philosophies that I've ignored. There's
nothing in the Boost design philosophies that I can find that you could
consider to have been violated here. The only ones that come close are:
"A library's implementation must if possible be portable and not restricted
to a particular compiler or operating system. If a portable implementation
is not possible, non-portable constructions are acceptable if reasonably
easy to port to other environments, and implementations are provided for at
least two popular operating systems (such as UNIX and Windows). "
Obviously it's impossible to implement a threading library with out
"non-portable constructions", but Boost.Threads has obeyed this tenant by
providing implementations for 3 major operating systems.
"Aim first for clarity and correctness; optimization should be only a
secondary concern in most Boost libraries."
You can argue that conditional compilation fails the clarity tests, but the
Boost membership has disagreed, and Boost.Threads has been carefully coded
to maintain readability despite the conditional compilation.
"Read Implementation Variation to see how to supply performance, platform,
or other implementation variations."
Boost.Threads has obeyed this, and uses the Boost.Configuration system
instead of platform specific conditional compilation mechanisms.
Nothing else is remotely related to your complaint.
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.
I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say with your first sentence here,
but Boost certainly does stand on its principles. Libraries are vigorously
peer reviewed for conformance with the Boost guidelines, as well as for
quality and correctness. Don't confuse your own personal preferences for a
lack in principles in myself, or Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk