RE: [boost] Re: Interesting Boost Implementation Details?

From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-07 13:10:02

> > [Brian Braatz]
> > I am biased because I am going to be attending both of those :)
> >
> > My thoughts are also biased because, currently, boost.lambda has
been
> > the focus of my attention recently. (it is also currently my
"favorite
> > boost library of the month")
> >
> > Suggestion:
> > 	Take Lambda and tear it apart and show how it works. This might
> > be a good subject matter to keep a consistent topic as a foundation
for
> > covering techniques.
> [David Abrahams]
> The biggest problem with that is that Boost.Lambda's implementation is
> in large part obsoleted by the new stuff Joel de Guzman and friends
are
> doing with Phoenix-2.  It is supposed to form the basis of a
> Boost.Lambda rewrite.  I don't know the details of what's there, but I
> imagine a good bit of Boost.Lambda is old technology for which better
> solutions exist today.
> 
> > The other thing you could do, is borrow the structure of your book,
and
> > use the same structure for the lecture. This way the attendees could
> > then get your book, and have a consistency from the lecture to the
book.
> [David Abrahams]
> That's fine for the other talk (the one on metaprogramming), but the
> book isn't about "inside the Boost libraries."
> 

[Brian Braatz] 
DOH!
I am behind the times here. I have been working with Boost for a year
now. And I am finally to the point where I can use boost.lamda in my
sleep. So all this stuff I find exciting and enthralling is "last
decades technology". Man I need to get with it :) 

Ok- let me alter the suggestion:
For inside boost:

Think of the 5 most important techniques used in most of the libraries
For each technique, show the technique, then show how at least 2
libraries use that technique in similar (or dissimilar) ways.

This would be a good way to ground the technique and by seeing the
different implementations, would help people "think correctly" to
further understand inside boost.

I make this suggestion because, I had to read "Brochschmidts" book on
OLE, like 5 times before I "got it". I first had to learn "how to think
about it". Once I learned "how to think about it", the whole thing made
sense.

If you can show the same technique in multiple areas, it will aid people
in "how do I think about this". Once you have accomplished that with the
audience, you can then springboard into the really complicated stuff.

(and yes, I am willfully and shamelessly trying to offer suggestions for
things I want you to talk about since I will be attending both talks :)
)