[boost] toward a more modular boost (was: [Review] xpressive)

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 00:41:32

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> 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!

But would you feel the same way if you had to download everything on 
SourceForge in order to use any part of it? :-) As boost grows (and grow 
it must), it is inevitable that it move to a more modular distribution 
mechanism. If boost had something like a cygwin installer which let you 
install individual libraries (and the libs they depend on!) the 
OMG-boost-is-sooo-big-and-scary arguments will simply go away, and we 
will have removed one more (perceived) barrier to adoption.

Also, I had the good fortune to have dinner with Scott Meyers this 
evening, and he asked why C++ didn't have the equivalent of Perl's CPAN 
-- that is, a huge repository of useful code to which anybody can 
submit. No releases. No quality assurance. No reviews. Survival of the 
fittest. Here's a wacky thought: can we turn boost-sandbox into CBAN 
(the Comprehensive Boost Archive Network), and cherry-pick the best 
libraries from CBAN for inclusion in boost? If anybody could make 
something like this fly, it's boost. We'd need to look closely at the 
CPAN model to find out why it's successful.

(And for the record, I don't find boost overwhelming either.)

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com