From: Hendrik Schober (SpamTrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 03:46:59
David Bergman <davidb_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Oliver Kullmann <O.Kullmann_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > > But for these "millions of C++ users" Boost is not the right choice.
> > It should be.
> Oliver was talking about those millions of C++ users that "see no benefit in
> smart pointers", "see MPL as black art" etc. [...]
I would like to see boost especially appeal
> [...] I want Boost to remain a choice for C++ experts.
IIRC, boost was founded as a means to play
with what should go into the next std lib.
IMHO the std lib isn't only for experts, but
for everyone. So should be boost.
> Most of those "millions of C++ users" that Oliver is refering to are
> actually quite junior C developers who have been forced to use some C++
> keywords and OOP in order to exploit MFC instead of raw Win32 programming.
> And those developers already have MFC and ATL, and would probably only use
> 'shared_ptr' from Boost.
Good start! That's how I sneaked boost in here:
I demonstrated a bug in the home-grown smart
pointer and pleaded for using boost's.
> 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.
If they are targeted, and it's unreasonable
to expect this from them, it should be made
> I do not think we have to flirt with the masses - developers that would not
> use the facilities found in Boost anyway - in order to position it better
> for incorporation into future C++ standardizations.
I very strongly disagree.
> /David Bergman
-- SpamTrap_at_[hidden] is never read I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org "Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving" Terry Pratchett
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk