From: loufoque (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 08:19:38
Phil Nash wrote:
> However, from a pragmatic perpective, I still favour adding the
> libraries to the standard (in terms of interface and gaurantees). This
> is because, as others have said, in many (especially larger)
> organisations, policies governing adoption of third party libraries
> can make it difficult - if not impossible - to use even as open and
> free library sets as Boost's.
> Where I am now, even though Boost was on their "approved list", use in
> my team had been put off because of the overhead of adding it to our
> source control and our projects. We are finally using it now, but
> still only those libraries that are implemented in headers.
> Then there are the larger number of developers/ team leaders/ managers
> who have either not heard of Boost, or are not familiar enough with it
> to think it worth taking on - and quite a few that I have met have
> negative preconceptions about it that can be difficult to overcome.
> All these obstacles would be drastically reduced or eliminated when
> talking about standard libraries.
So we should put boost into the standard library because of the
stupidity of some companies or team leaders ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk