From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 08:53:14
"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
| > IMO
| > the more flexible the solution is - the more users it will end up
| > attracting.
| I don't agree with this statement at all. Making things more flexible
| incures a semantic dilution (not to speak of the added complexity
| necessary to support that flexibility) that encourages users to just
| 'roll their own' solution.
| I'm not saying that flexibility or genericity is bad. But it comes
| with a price.
I don't think it is unfair to see it as an expert tool and not something the
ordinary user need to use or worry about learning. That implies that we do
want it in boost,
but that it might not be a good candidate for std::.
There has been a lot of discussion about a CPAN thing for C++; a place where
can jsut be found. Unless someone does all the work, I don't see that
happening for C++.
However, Boost has a unique position and chance to become a de-facto
high-quality C++ libraries (CPAN don't really guarantee any quality). I
imagine that will happen
over the next few years as we close more and more gabs in the C++ library
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk