Re: [boost] Re: Benefit/Complexity ratio in libraries [was MPLcontainersand algorithms]

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-20 06:41:39

From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:000701c247b7$507a3a10$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > How many alternative libraries have been submitted for a topic that is
> > already covered by a Boost library?
> >
> > This is a roundabout way to say that it _will_ discourage others. I say
> > nothing about this being good or bad, and nothing about MPL in
> > particular. It's just that "competition" within Boost is virtually
> nonexistant.
>
> Do you suppose that is partly due to the fact that when an improvement
> to an existing library comes along, there is more pressure to integrate
> the improvements rather than have separate libraries?

No, it's due to the fact that

* People think that it's forbidden to compete with/within Boost;
* People don't feel like putting a lot of effort into a library that's going
to get rejected;
* People don't want to alienate other Boost contributors by challenging
their turf.

In practice, this means that Boost tends to operate on "first come, first
served" basis; this works well if the first contribution in an area turns
out to be superior to the alternatives, and the Boost success so far can
partially be explained with this kind of luck (and partially with iterative
refinement.)