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

From: bjorn_at_[hidden]
Date: 2005-09-24 06:57:07

On Thursday 22 September 2005 16:24, Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:41:32 -0700, Eric Niebler wrote
>
> > (And for the record, I don't find boost overwhelming either.)
>
> I don't either.  When I compare Boost to the available JAVA libraries the
> state of C++ is still disappointing.  In my mind we have a lot of catching
> up to get C++ library support to the point where 'language choice' is
> driven by a 'lack of libraries'.  Or put another way, people that have good
> reason to implement in C++ shouldn't need to 'suffer' from the lack of
> libraries.
>

I agree with this, but to be fair I do not think it is as bad as it sometimes 
look.  Remember that C++ has extreeme amounts of libraries of all sorts.  The 
problem is availability.  Most of them have licencences or platform 
dependencies that are generally unfriendly to the community.  Also many are 
competitive, not complementary.  This is very different from the standard 
library, boost, ACE/TAO, Loki, and some others.  So if we compare these with 
what you find in jdk or CSPAM, then there are two major differences.  The C++ 
libraries are generally soving relatively low level tasks only not higher 
level application tasks, and you have to look in many different places to 
find them.

So in my view, a good start would be a C++ focused site where everybody felt 
welcome to contribute portable solutions to the community, even if they 
prefered to have their own site, library brand, or whatever.  Kind of like 
Source Forge, but more focused on streamlining C++ library information, 
quality and distribution like CPAN.  

<vision>
If your library did not have an entry in there, nobody would find it because 
that is where people would look. 
</vision>

That would only work only if it really feels like neutral ground, and all 
library developers felt like they really did a stupid thing if they did not 
make their entry, or somehow a third party could handle that.  But it could 
also be made attractive by providing compiler and computer platform resources 
available for development and testing.  Providing portable C++ sources is 
very hard without that, a situation that is very different in Perl and Java.  
Also this is a good way of pushing compiler vendors into staightening out 
their rincles.  High visibility of cross platform regression test result like 
in Boost is a good thing.

-----
Bjørn