From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 18:51:31
Again, like I said, everything new has some associated learning curve, and a
lot of what goes into boost is NEW. That quantity library that's being
discussed, that's NEW, it would require a learning curve. Your random
library, that's new as well. How about the spirit parser?
So, which solution has the best long term maintainability? I think mine
does, since it makes the intent 100% clear. So, in 5 years, there's still
no question as to what's happening.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Yap" <Noel.Yap_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance
> "Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > Oh, and, I'd like to point out that the learning curve argument could be
> > applied to EVERYTHING inside boost. Because everything that's new
> > people to learn it. And, you could make the same argument for almost
> > everything in boost, well, why learn to use boost, when there's an
> > C way of doing things that's well understood and has been in use for 30
> > so years.
> You're forgetting that the boost smart pointers are consistent with
> std::auto_ptr<> which is already part of the standard. c_out and
> c_in_out are brand new interfaces to learn.
> So, which would you think has an easier learning curve _given typical
> C++ knowledge and/or experience_?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk