From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-21 19:01:23
Darren Cook wrote:
>>>Goran Mitrovic wrote:
>>>Not really always. Don't you think that Boost can be (or even already is)
>>>overcrowded? I cannot really define this with words; it's a feeling that I get
>>>from its everyday use. And there is a lot of conformation of my feeling I see in
>>>my smalltalk with friends/coworkers.
>>Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>Are you saying that we should not accept a library to avoid
>>over-crowding boost? Hmmm, doesn't sound right to me.
> I think this is exactly right. Each new library adds to testing load,
> thins out the available maintainers, and increases the overwhelming
> feeling you get when you look at the boost library list.
I never get that "overwhelming feeling" when I see the library list.
OTOH, I get a secure feeling thinking that I have all these tools
at my disposal and all are solid, peer-reviewed code. The Boost
libraries is nothing compared to the list that Source Forge
provides, yet no one complains about being overwhelmed by SF's
immensity. It's actually an ingredient to its success!
As to the testing load, I think a lot needs to be done to streamline
the tests (as Rene Rivera noted). For example, Serialization already
takes too much time in its "carpet bombing" approach to regression
testing. It's not a problem of too many libraries. It's a problem
of inefficient testing. Serialization, for example takes the
A x B x C x D approach which is certainly a lot more taxing than
X + N (whenever N new libraries are added).
Really, this is just a matter of "growing up pains". I'm very positive
that Boost will get past these problems, but certainly not at the
expense of prohibiting exciting new libraries, just because of the
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk