Re: [boost] Benefit/Complexity ratio in libraries [was MPL containers and algorithms]

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-22 07:02:30

At 03:33 PM 8/19/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:
 >From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
 >>
 >> There are cases where having two ways of doing something makes no
 >> sense.  But we shouldn't reject it out-of-hand.  I hope the acceptance 
of
 >> MPL by Boost won't discourage others from submitting a more minimalist
 >> library.
 >
 >How many alternative libraries have been submitted for a topic that is
 >already covered by a Boost library?

Well, the current Random Number library replaced the earlier min_rand 
library.

Boost.Test V2 (from new developers) replaced V1.

Your current smart pointers replaced (in an upward compatible way, no less) 
the earlier shared_ptr (from other developers).

Notice also that all that happened with support of the developers of the 
library components which were replaced.

Plus the cases Doug Gregor mentioned. Plus other libraries that people 
asked us to look at that didn't gain a lot of support.

So alternative libraries have been submitted (and some of them accepted) 
already, and that will continue into the future I expect.

--Beman