From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 10:00:57
On Oct 6, 2006, at 7:23 AM, Andy Little wrote:
>> 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
> Anything worthwhile is robust enough to withstand criticism.
> Please lets not
> all lets have to sit about saying how Nice everything is.
Andy, you are absolutely correct that library reviews involve
criticism, but how we criticize is very important. The goal of a
Boost library review is to improve the library through constructive
criticism, and at the end we make a decision: is the library good
enough at this point to accept it into Boost? If not, we hope to have
provided enough constructive criticism for it to be improved and
accepted at a later time. I believe that the Serialization library is
our best example of how constructive criticism in a review resulted
in an excellent library that was accepted in its second review, and I
hope we can have more such success stories.
You brought up some valid points in your initial message, and these
points need to be discussed. But you crossed a line when asking
whether the authors are interested in defending their library against
your criticisms. They are interested, or they would not have brought
their library up for review. If you don't get a response to your
question quickly, be patient; if it takes too long or you don't get
an answer you feel is sufficient, ask again or try to rephrase the
E-mail is a poor communication medium, and even if messages rarely
get lost in transmission, they often get drowned in the deluge of
other messages. Don't assume that an unanswered message means you're
being ignored. Given constructively, criticism will be taken better
and have more positive effects, and you'll get the answers you want.
Doug, Boost Moderator