Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 07:25:07

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Who will benefit of this all:
> - library writers who do not want to support old
> systems (less pressure on them) may spend more time
> with design. This gets more important if more
> powerfull/complex libraries will emerge.

All this for less pressure on a few authors? These authors may simply
refuse to support older compilers today.

> - users with new compilers (they can be more sure
> the library remains maintainable and may even be able
> to understand its inner, too). Their existing code
> using Boost should compile without changes.

That sounds like a break-even to me.

> - compiler vendors will be able catch more errors.


> - standard comittee may be more interested in clean
> code.

I doubt it. Historically, the committee isn't particularly interested
in our implementations, only in our interfaces.

> - if/when the world moves to C++0x it will be easier
> to move Boost there (this is beyond horizont of this
> idea though).

How so?

Sorry, but I just don't see what problem this is solving. The
proposal is a huge undertaking, today or next year, and I don't see
any benefits that would make it worth the trouble. Furthermore,
compilers will always be broken and require workarounds here and
there; you won't be able to keep them from creeping in, and I don't
think it's desirable to. Part of the point of Boost is to have code
that's usable in the real world.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at