From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 07:36:56
Andy Little wrote:
> "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Andy Little wrote:
>>> Are the GIL Authors interested interested in defending their library against
>>> criticisms or do they expect it to get into boost by default?
>>> If it does get in to Boost without any defence whatsoever, then it will
>>> some suspicions (I currently think are unfounded) I have about Boost.
>> Huh ? Are you serious ? Today is the first day of GIL's evaluation. What do
>> expect ? Give the author(s) some time to collect opinions and criticism so
>> can provide a well structured response.
> 3 days is plenty, unless they have no answers...
The review started yesterday, and hopefully there are many more reviews that
will arrive. If there is a lot of overlap in their arguments it would be more
efficient for Lubomir to address them collectively.
>> I believe it is much easier to criticize and mentally destruct something than
>> is to actually create and defend it.
> Criticism is what a review is about. If I'm not allowed to criticise , seems no
> point in having a review.
> And I'm not sure what you mean by mentally destroying... could you elaborate?
> Anything worthwhile is robust enough to withstand criticism. Please lets not
> all lets have to sit about saying how Nice everything is.
What are you talking about ? Boost has never been a place where compliments
were made gratuitously. I'm not suggesting not to criticize. My point is that
it is far easier to make a simple statement reflecting a 'first impression'
than it is to give detailed reasoning (and defense).
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk