[boost] Re: Math constants - updated.

From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-17 10:08:11

Paul A Bristow wrote:
> But there is another planet on which live nearly all 'amateur' programmers,
> scientists and engineers, sociologists, medics, electricians and plumbers
> ... me even ;-)
> who, if told that pi is a function,
> will assume you are joking and just head back to use a more sensible
> language.

I don't see why boost should be influenced by people who will make 
decisions so cavalierly.

> 
> They don't read or contribute to the Boost list, let alone understand!
> But they _ARE_ the 'customers'.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I think you're talking about people who 
either do not even know about boost or, if they have, took one look and 
ran the other way. So I don't see them as being the customers. Or, if 
they're the ones you're targeting, why are you trying to place the 
library in boost, which clearly targets only the most sophisticated C++ 
programmers?

I have nothing against physicists or other C++ programmers who find 
templates and boost way too obscure or complex to use and choose to 
stick with older techniques that they know how to use effectively. I am, 
in fact, one of the "amateur" programmers you refer to, and I myself 
find much of boost way too difficult to learn. Like everybody else, I'm 
sure if I had the time to study boost more carefully, I could use it 
effectively. But I don't. So I use only the parts I understand.

But what I like about boost a lot is that it adheres relatively well to 
a core set of principles and idioms that fit very well with my 
programming style. In particular, I am absolutely delighted to have 
stumbled onto a community of C++ programmers who understand the power of 
templates way better than I do. I am against "polluting" boost with code 
that compromises these principles, because it would re-introduce 
difficulties that boost helps me avoid.

I am not against your different implementations of the constants 
library; I might even use them myself as a compromise. But I just don't 
think they belong in boost; I rely on boost as being a fairly 
uncompromising library that tries to remains true to its basic principles.