RE: [boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 05:41:38

David Abrahams wrote: 

> > 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.
> 
> 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.

I do not want to be a member of an "experts" club, I want a set of tools
that actually fit a highly experienced developer. It just might be that such
a toolset would not fit the less experienced one. If Boost can fit the whole
spectrum, great
 
By the way, I think there indeed is a correlation between "make
-k"/"bjam"-adaptable developers and those using the most complex portions of
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.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > And those developers already have MFC and ATL, and would 
> probably only 
> > use 'shared_ptr' from Boost.
> 
> That's a good start.

Agreed, and that is usually the way that I sneak Boost into the "mainstream"
developer's vocabulary.
 
> > 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.

But they sure would be able to change one or two environment variables and
type 'bjam', right?

> > I do not think we have to flirt with the masses
> 
> Too late ;-)
> 
> >  - 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.

The risk is that Boost will inevitably belong to those 50% of the C++
standard that is never touched by most developers, ever. None of the "C++
experts" I have interviewed for employment has heard of the keyword
'typename' or used template template parameters, or used 'virtual' base
classes.

That does not mean that I will stop preaching Boostness for all C++
developers I meet. Heck, I even try to promote Lambda and MPL, so you are
probably right, Mr. Abrahams. Boost actually might help reunifying C++
again, instead of constituting two languages, one for MFC:ers (I have
developed a lot of MFC apps myself, so do not take the label literally) and
one for "experts", which it does today, IMEHO.

/David Bergman