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

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 20:53:46

"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:004f01c2c0d5$da16f5a0$4900a8c0_at_c161550b...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> > > 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.

People disagree with others all the time based on their technical
understanding. No one's opinion is exempt from reasonable discussions or
arguments over what someone else perceives as the correct solution to a
technical problem. I'd argue with William Shakespeare ( or his ghost <g> )
on poetical drama if I though I had an intelligent comment to make or, more
to the point, with Bjarne Stroustrup on C++.

I am a great admirer of "Modern C++ Design" as I would guess many other C++
programmers also are. That doesn't make Andrei exempt from other's opinions,
as I am sure he knows, nor do I believe he really thinks it should be so.
But it is strange that he really thinks he is unpopular with Boost, meaning
people who use or create Boost libraries. I would guess exactly the opposite
since the spur he gave to creative template programming in his book must
certainly have influenced many Boost developers.

>
> 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.

I don't think people are "manufacturing" arguments. They are just bringing
up issues, seeking to discuss them, and make intelligent comments about
ideas which they care.