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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 23:34:06

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:34:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <001a01c2c0f1$a7395940$4900a8c0_at_c161550b> ("Paul Mensonides"'s
 message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:06:03 -0800")
Message-ID: <u4r83ce9t.fsf_at_[hidden]>
Lines: 164
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2
 (i386-msvc-nt5.1.2600)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--text follows this line--
"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
>> Argument is very different from derision.  I think it would be very
>> foolish to deride Andrei's opinions, which usually have something very
>> incisive behind them.
>
> Agreed, but that is more-or-less what happened.  Andrei asked for an
> example that justified the design.  No one could produce one.  The
> best anyone could do was say "it's like the STL, so that must be
> good," and "we might need the generality if the future."  

That's *not* derision, Paul.

> Once again, I don't want to get into an argument about this
> particular issue, I'm only pointing out that people tend to respond
> harshly when their designs (or favored designs) are questioned.
> Simple as that.  I'm not immune and neither are you.

Agreed, but there's no example of harshness here AFAICT.

>> > 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.
>>
>> I think there's a big difference between flack and disagreement.
>> The fact that some people weren't convinced by Andrei's argument,
>> and that you were, doesn't mean that there's a political bias.
>
> It isn't completely based on political bias, but it is there
> nonetheless.  It is *always* there in some form or another.
> Incidently, Andrei was flat out told "if you don't like it, don't
> use it."  

You're claiming somebody said that; fine, I believe you.  That's not
"how boost treats Andrei", it's just what somebody said.  It's not
particularly sympathetic, I'll grant you that.  It could also be
interpreted as a form of the reasonable argument "you don't pay for
this if you don't use it, so what's the harm?"  

> That wasn't exactly addressing Andrei's concerns about the design or
> attempting to reach any sort of consensus.  It was a flatout
> dismissal of Andrei's arguments.  Boost is great at making people's
> opinions feel unwelcome if they don't conform in certain areas.

Probably true; people don't tend to feel their opinions are being
well-received when the majority disagrees with them.

>> > 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)
>>
>> Despite the fact that there's some available evidence that it has been
>> significant to some people.  Who knows whether or not it's
>> "significant"? It's pure speculation.
>
> No it isn't.  It is my personal opinion, which is exactly what I
> said. People actually use Loki's smart pointer, so it isn't
> speculation.

Sorry, I didn't mean that.  What I meant to say was that the best we
can do about determining the overall significance at this point is to
speculate (based on anecdotal evidence or whatever).

>> What we do here is to consider the arguments.
>
> Yes, and also engage in little "political wars."  It doesn't matter
> what anyone intended.  That is the way things come off sometimes.

My experience is that the more people think of it in political terms,
the more political it in fact gets.  I'm just trying to discourage
that kind of spiral.

>> With all due respect, that sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to the
>> fact that there's any discussion or disagreement with your
>> point-of-view.  Most of the discussion about this particular issue has
>> been very detached AFAICT.
>
> Your response in whole seems like a knee-jerk reaction to justify
> behavior.  

What behavior do you think I'm justifying?

> That is the way it goes.  You have preconceived ideas, as do I.  I'm
> telling you how I interpret it, not whether I think it is absolute
> fact.  Nor am I overly concerned about the pointer issue.  I'm only
> defending that which I think needs to be defended.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> But I don't think I have a fundamental disagreement with Andrei on
>> this.  Really!  How can I convince you?
>
> Okay, okay.  I believe you. ;)

Thanks.  It seems to me that if you have misperceived me as
fundamentally disagreeing about PBSP, you might consider that your
perceptions about "Boost attitudes" or whatever have also been
mistaken.  At the same time, I guess we can all afford to take more
responsibility for how our posts come off as sounding.

>> > 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.
>>
>> Exactly.  In order to reach consensus, we need to have patience
>> with other peoples' inattention, lack of insight, stubbornness, and
>> attachment to preconceived notions.
>
> Yes, and stop always pointing the finger at others without examining
> ourselves first.  We are *all* guilty of this, so don't sweep my
> opinion on this subject under the rug either.

OK, I won't.  But I also won't admit to *always* pointing the finger
without self-examination.  As a moderator, I feel a responsibility to
think carefully about the message I'm sending in this forum, so I do
try to pay close attention to it (not to say that I always succeed).

> However, the point being that consensus on some issues will never be
> reached.  We are faced with a question.  Is a policy-based smart
> pointer a good design?  

It's too early to say; I don't even know which specific design you're
asking about.  It could be good.

> Or is it only a bad design because 'shared_ptr' already exists?  

It may not be about "good vs bad" but whether it strikes the right
balance, or a number of other things.  My point is that its too early
to tell since we're not looking at a design, and showing up with the
attitude that Boost is somehow predisposed against a policy-based
smart pointer design is self-defeating.

I just think this whole thing is blown way out-of-proportion, and
worse has a self-reinforcing nature.  You may not believe it, but I
have personally bent over backwards to try to stop this cycle.

> If so, the standing argument is that "certain people will simply not
> bother to choose."  Otherwise, the argument is whether policy
> parameters complicate the interface.

Or whether the complication buys enough additional power, or, whether
it leads to large systems with smart pointer interoperability
problems, or...

Not saying I buy any of those arguments; just that there are a few
things to talk about once we have a design to look at.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution