[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 07:45:41

"David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

I think you'd be surprised at how many even of the advanced Boost
developers don't really understand Boost.Build.  It's most of us.
It's not just a question of what you could, theoretically, adapt to.
It's also a question of what you have time to learn.

For Boost developers, we have to make learning Boost.Build easier, but
it is still going to be a hump for them to get over.  For everyone
else, the incentives are a bit lower -- we may need to provide other
means to that end.

>> > 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?

Yes, but they really don't like it.  And it doesn't fit into their
development model.  It's uncomfortable, and thus a disincentive to
using Boost.

>> > 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. 

?? Boost will belong to some portion of the C++ standard ??
I have no clue what you're getting at.

> 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.

Well, I hope so, anyway.  That's what good libraries *should* do.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com