Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-08 10:01:46

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:18:45 +0100, "Paul A Bristow"
<pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>| For C++0x, all of TR1 has been adopted, with the exception of the
>| special math functions. There was a major concern with cost of the
>| feature outside the Library group. And note that cost goes beyond
>| simply implementing the library - at least one vendor
>| mentioned that if
>| they were given an implementation free of charge they still could not
>| afford it, due to increased testing/QA costs.
>This says to me that the tail is wagging the dog!

Frankly this surprised me too. First of all, none of the vendors which
also supply a standard library (note: with this I'm deliberately
excluding EDG) seem to care so much about quality as the above
statement seem to imply; they do all sorts of silly errors, which go
from macro-guarding <cassert>, to making numeric_limits<> members
non-ICEs. And this is just 101; let us not speak about *serious
errors* (of the kind which can make a perfectly conforming program
crash under your eyes). A recent post in "[string_cvt] help with VC
7.1 is needed" should tell enough about the amount of testing many
vendors put in their compilers (I wonder what they really do when they
delay a release for one year or so). And, after all, why not going
with a N1426bis ("Why we can't afford special math functions") which
explains in depth why a whole company cannot do what 3 persons alone
have done excellently, and for years?

Sorry for being harsh, but it seems to me excluding something from the
standard just because one vendor didn't want to face it is sacrificing
the majority of users for the sake of a commercial minority.

[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at