From: Manfred Doudar (manfred.doudar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 03:50:54
David Abrahams wrote:
>"David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>Oliver Kullmann <O.Kullmann_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>The exciting thing about Boost is that it is Avantgarde, a
>>>>good deal of interesting research(!), and not compromising on
>>>>quality. That's at least my understanding of Boost.
Boost only is so by the extent of its reach/familarity - ie it really is
a matter of exposure; any other consideration of Boost is really a matter
What is exciting about Boost is the exploration into new avenues - the
overwhelming desire to do better, and chart unexplored teritory;
the MPL, Fusion or the Boost.PP are such examples; and then there is the
level of quality output and constant peer review - discussions beyond
the text book. -That's what makes Boost exciting.
>>>We don't want to be Avantgarde/research; to the extent that
>>>we are, we need to fix it.
>>I agree with that, unless one replaces the "Avantgarde/research" with "for
>>experts." I.e., I want Boost to remain a choice for C++ experts.
I believe the waters have become muddied here - I'm going to go out on
a limb here and hazard a guess that the intended statement was that we
don't want to compramise on the quality of Boost - and I don't think
that will ever happen.
To an extent, the Boost community is a collective for the advancement
of the language (whence research), and a worthy advocate and signpost
to the rest of the world to advertise the worth of the language - our
signposts just need to be bigger - otherwise Boost withers.
>We never wanted to be the sole province of experts. We always wanted
>widespread usage. If you want to be a member of an exclusive
>"experts" club this is the wrong place to find it.
Agreed. If Boost were ever to be the province of experts it would defeat
its very purpose - namely to grow and flourish throughout the C++ community;
to be an example and a leader in modern C++ method, design, and direction.
>>What I am saying is that it would not be unreasonable to expect the
>>targeted developers to actually type 'bjam', and perhaps even set
>>the proper environment variables.
>It would be unreasonable for some of them. I've worked with quite
>advanced and competent developers who are only comfortable in an IDE.
I sympathize. I only work on the command line (Unix / Linux). I could
never work with an IDE, and if I had too I'd be lost - so in the same
vein, I am sure those not comfortable with command line tools are just as
lost as I, when set in front of an IDE. -Boost needs to better cater for
their needs, it's a sad reality, but too many coders out there don't live
on the command line.
>>I do not think we have to flirt with the masses
>Too late ;-)
And again I stress, if we don't Boost dies - and none of us wants that.
>> - developers that would not use the facilities found in Boost
>>anyway - in order to position it better for incorporation into
>>future C++ standardizations.
>Yes, we do. We need maximal adoption in order to be best positioned
>for standardization. Not just to get the libraries accepted, but also
>so they are really deserving of standardization.
Again, well said.
-- Manfred Doudar MetOcean Engineers www.metoceanengineers.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk