From: Lassi A.Tuura (lassi.tuura_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-17 14:58:03
> 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.
> [...] 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. [...] I am against "polluting" boost with code that
> compromises these principles, because it would re-introduce
> difficulties that boost helps me avoid.
Do I read you correctly that you actually say templates are an
essential part to every design in boost? I must admit such an approach
would never occur to me, I have always thought one picks a technique
applicable to the problem, and sometimes it's the 100-year old version
that does the best job. "One hammer doesn't fit all screws" they say
-- But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses. --Bruce Leverett, "Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk