Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 14:28:55

"troy d. straszheim" <troy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> I have noticed the problem, but since such libraries may not be
>> accepted, isn't it wrong to put Boost in the name, even if
>> qualified?
> I really agree with this, and I don't think a disclaimer or the
> "proposed" is strong enough at all, and I think the feared dilution is
> already occurring. I have wondered at every review why reviewed
> libraries come with docs that already have the boost name (and logo!) on
> them, completely indistinguishable from an accepted library.

Others obviously feel differently, but that *really* doesn't bother
me, and I don't want to make busywork for library authors by forcing
them to make more trivial changes than neccessary when a library is

> At the first review, being new to all this, I surmised that boost
> was some kind of old-boy's club, where it was given that libraries
> that went up for review would be accepted

Sometimes I fear that we may be accepting too many libraries because
people want to be nice, and the only people doing reviews have a
strong interest in getting the functionality in some form. Just a
vague concern, no real evidence.

> and that the real task in getting "in" to boost was more a political
> one: to schmooze your way in to getting your library reviewed at
> all... Now I see that it's not accurate, but it wasn't a good
> impression, it really erodes the value of the name "boost".

Wow, that really says something. Thanks for the perspective.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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