Re: [boost] Re: Re: Policy-based smart pointers revisisted

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 17:47:03

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>

> If you really care about this, why don't you work on making a boost
> submission or bringing a proposal to the committee for the next
> meeting?

By all means.  A policy-based smart pointer doesn't mandate the inclusion of
all of Loki--even though there is much in Loki that is worth looking at.

> > My feeling is that the boost community would of course be interested
> > in looking over a related submission, but most of its members are
> > not interested in actively working on such a port. And let's face
> > it, I'm not popular with boost, and that doesn't help generating
> > enthusiasm inside boost :o).
>
> I think your perception that your unpopular with boost does more to
> hurt your ability to generate enthusiasm than any actual
> unpopularity.  You seem to have the attitude that the cards are
> stacked against you, and to approach boost with a kind of resentment
> and resignation that you won't get a fair hearing.

I don't want to propagate a war here, but Andrei's perception (of his
perception) is not entirely unfounded either.  In the past, Andrei has
raised some practical concerns with certain design strategies.  At that
time, his opinion was derided based entirely on, from my perspective,
religious devotion to an unproven concept.  Andrei asked for practical
examples of the utility of those design strategies, and he was effectively
told, "If you don't like it, don't use it."  I don't want to get into that
old argument again, and that is not my intention.  I'm merely pointing out
that Andrei got flack for presenting an opinion counter to many Boost
developers' and standing by that opinion.  The fact is that there are many
things that various Boost developers will argue over with religious fervor
(i.e. another way of saying "political"), and I simply don't believe that
people are entirely objective.  Their preferences influence their beliefs,
and people typically don't take criticism well.  That is to be expected.
Such is life.

The same thing looks like it is happening here with policy-based smart
pointers.  It seems to me that arguments are being manufactured to preclude
the concept of a policy-based smart pointer (such as incompatibilities and
the supposed complexity of interface--neither of which I personally think is
significant) precisely because it isn't 'shared_ptr' or that it would
subsume 'shared_ptr'.  That may or may not be the case, but that is how it
comes off to me, and I can see how it would come off that way to others.

This is precisely why I think that we need both forms.  When experts
disagree fundamentally on such a concept, both forms should be
supported--and there is no question that both Dave and Andrei (and many
others here) are experts.  If one or the other rarely gets used, then we can
revisit that decision at a later date.

> You have made real contributions to the work of many people here; I
> know the iterator adaptors library would never have arisen as it did
> without ideas you sparked years ago about policy-based design.  Why
> not apply your great intelligence, humour, and ability to communicate
> as productively around here as you do elsewhere?

Yes, definitely, and there is plenty of credit to go around.  I purposefully
read every post that Andrei submits to this list--often times because he is
humorous as well as intelligent.  It is also obvious that Andrei makes an
effort to be civil when he disagrees (as do many others), but I think that
sometimes he gets frustrated when people don't understand (or even see) his
point of view.  Actually, that goes for everyone here, and everyone needs to
keep that in mind and take disagreement with a grain of salt.

Paul Mensonides