Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

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
requires
> > 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
adequate
> > C way of doing things that's well understood and has been in use for 30
or
> > 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_?
>
> Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>