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

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 21:25:27

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]>

> 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.

In the example I mention, which was the sequence abstraction design of the
MPL, there was a massive debate on the pros and cons of that design.
Ultimately, I consensus was never reached because everybody got tired of
arguing.  That said, the design was (and probably still is) untested in real
code, whereas the simpler design was.  To that end, Andrei asked anyone to
convince him with a practical code sample that justified the design.  It
never happened.  We had a severe case of several experts fundamentally
disagreeing.  The only possible resolution was to display the validity of
the design with an example, but instead, Andrei's concerns where disregarded
altogether, and he was basically told to "deal with it."

> 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.

Yes, I know, and that is not my point at all.

> 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.

I'm only calling it like I see it, and I'm not trying to offend anyone.
Rather, I'm saying I understand exactly why Andrei feels the way he does.

> >
> > 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.

My major point with what I said is that it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish religious defense of an argument from practical defense of an
argument--and both exist.

Paul Mensonides