Re: [boost] Why use Boost?

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 01:00:06

Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>>> "Paul Giaccone" <paulg_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>>
>>>> "Essentially, Boost needs to sell itself as something that no C++
>>>> programmer would want to be without. Think how the adman would write
> it:
>>>> "C++ getting you down? Spending hours tracking down that memory leak?
>>>> Then try Boost! It will change your life!" Well, maybe not, but
>>>> something along these lines would certainly go a long way to showing
> why
>>>> anyone should be using Boost.
>>> While I completely agree, I can't help but mention that people fluent in
>>> this kind of language
>> What kind of language ? Do you mean writing correct English ?
> 
> No, I don't mean English.
> 
>> If one's
>> primary language is not English I can well understand this, but if one's
>> primary language is English it is that person's own fault that he/she
>> can not write English well enough to be understood by others.
>>
>> Being very fluent in English myself, I have volunteered in the past to
>> help other Boost developers write better English
> 
> This is very much appreciated...
> 
>> but since no one has
>> ever taken me up on it, I do not think it is acceptable to claim that
>> the inability to write English is a stumbling block to writing decent
>> documentation.
> 
> Well, this is not about documentation...  This is about the "language" sales
> people use to convince kids that Coca-cola and chips is the best food in the
> world.  I believe this kind of language is pretty much international.

It may be "international" but it is worthless for serious programmers.

What Boost might have is a paragraph, or two, on each implementation 
explaining to a programmer what the main functionality of the 
implementation is about and why one might want to use instead of current 
solutions which are part of either the C++ standard language or C++ 
standard library. I think this could be done in general terms without 
resorting to empty market hype, and would be an effective means of 
telling the programmer about the importance of a particular 
implementation before he delves into that implementation's specific 
documentation. While much of the Boost documentation is excellent, there 
is a tendency in some of it to start explaining details before a good 
general explanation is given, and this possibily results in discouraging 
programmers from using the implementation.

> 
> I do agree with Martin Wille that this kind of advertisement may have a
> negative rather than positive effect, especially when the developers are
> concerned.

If it's a sort of marketing hype, I agree. But there is room for a good 
general explanation of a library which sticks to technical elements and 
useful, practical functionality. There's no need to sell Boost but there 
could be a better way to make the general information about each 
implementation more easily understood.

Whoever were to write a good general description of a particular 
implementation, if it were not done by one of the programmer's of that 
implementation, it would need to be signed off by one of them before 
appearing on a Boost web page.