From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-10 03:06:40
On 10/9/06, loufoque <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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 ?
No, that wasn't my main point - it was just a supporting factor. And I
wouldn't necessarily call them all "stupid". Some have good, if
My overall point was just, as others have said, to reach a much wider audience.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk