Re: [boost] Boost libraries after C++0x acceptance

From: Steve Hutton (shutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-10 00:44:19

On 2006-10-09, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I would make one small change to the above statement - removing the
> word "standard" so tha tit reads
>
> The deciding factor often seems to be the availability of a [standard] lib 
> (Java, .Net).
>
> I see very successful libraries - MFC - totally non portable that are
> successful because they provide the right toolkit for the job.  The
> fact that they are not standard hasn't been relevant.

Yes, the majority of the market place doesn't care about the difference
between standard and de-facto standard.  But achieving true de-facto
standard status means your library must ship with the development
environments used by the majority of users.  In practice the only way
to achieve de-facto standard level market penetration is to in fact
to become standardized [*]

Just look a the level of STL adoption before it was *both* standardized
and shipped by Microsoft.

Steve
[*] Unless of course you happen to have an OS monopoly.