From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-16 11:02:50
Kevin Lynch wrote:
> Deane Yang wrote:
> I unfortunately have seen this opposition too, although not on the boost
> list. I've mostly encountered it from my colleagues who are physicists
> first, and use code as a tool, but couldn't care less about actually
> learning current idioms.
> Make no mistake ... these are very, very smart people saying these
> things. But like most of us, they just can't or won't be bothered to
> invest energy in keeping up with current trends in areas outside their
> fields of expertise.
As some recent postings to this list have indicated, it is probably true
that MOST C++ programmers, and not just the physicists, avoid templates
and the idioms used and promoted by boost.
On the other hand, the boost libraries have never, as far as I can tell,
compromised on interfaces to accommodate programmers who don't like
templates or modern C++ idioms. Why should the constants library be any
different? Why should boost give physicists special consideration that
most C++ programmers do not get?
> That all said, I don't put much weight on the opinions of practitioners
> who fail to keep current or to understand why things are the way they
> are. Boost should "do the right thing". The users who complain will
> follow along after a time, because they'll have no choice ... their
> tools will change out from under them, and their graduate students will
> roll their eyes and force them to adapt to the modern idioms. We
> shouldn't be held back by the whiners ... if we did, the projects I work
> on would still be writing all our data acquisition and analysis code in
> Fortran IV :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk