From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 21:56:23
Tony Juricic <tonygeek_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Reading the latest SR1 proposal to C++ standard, explained in recent
> article by some Google corporate entity, I could not but feel sad:
> Here we have corporate advertisers, pretending to be open source
> developers, defending half-assed, miniscule additions to C++ standards
> as a big improvenent.
> Shame to Google and Boost and C++ standards commitee. IMO, you deserve
> as much respect as Microsoft corporate develpoers.
Your post is almost completely unintelligible. The only clear thing
about it is that it's a scurrilous attack, which of course is quite
destructive in itself.
Just to deal with some of the points, to the degree that I understand
what you're saying:
- I've never heard of SR1. Perhaps you mean TR1?
- Boost has no connection with Google. If "some Google corporate
entity" wrote an article about the standard, it's not our fault.
- The C++ standards committee has no connection with Google. If
"some Google corporate entity" wrote an article about the
standard, it's not our fault.
- Boost and the C++ standards committee are composed entirely of
volunteers. We do the best we can, and we have nothing to be
ashamed of. Many people are better off for our efforts. If you
think something can and should be done better, you're invited to
try instead of taking potshots at the people who are actually
committing time and energy to do the work.
Your post violates both the letter of the Boost discussion guidelines
and the spirit of the way we interact here -- not because you're
criticizing Boost and the standards committee, but because your
approach is vitriolic and inflammatory. I suggest you read
http://www.boost.org/more/discussion_policy.htm to get familiar with
the culture before posting again.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Moderator
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk