From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 08:35:12
Robert Ramey wrote:
> If one want's to add an externallly defined language
> independent format to the above goals, I think one
> will be doomed to failure. Of course I could be
> wrong and anyone is free to take a crack at it. Lots
> of people have. I'm not sure how all the other
> systems out there compare to boost serialization
> these days.
> So I don't see an externally documented format
> for this boost serialization. Hence I don't see anything
> like boost serialization ever appearing in the standard.
> Perhaps some system which might functionally similar
> but I think it would have to be grown from scratch
> with a different set of goals and priorities.
I think you're being too pessimistic -- standards that could work have been
developed multiple times and places. No doubt, though, this is too much for a
single person and I agree with you that boost.serialization might not have
Off the top of my head I think the following would be good, well-documented
- CDR for truly portable binary data
- JSON text format - http://www.json.org/
- YAML text format - http://www.yaml.org/
So, if someone would spend a couple days writing new archives we'd be in
BTW, I have seen the lack of a documented format become a reason to not use
Boost serialization on a project.
> Which is the reason that I think the whole concept
> of library standards have been over-applied and
> even detremental to the future success of C++.
This too I believe is wrong. Every human system of significance rests on
standards. You and I couldn't be conversing now if we didn't have a pile of
IEEE standards, posix standards, W3C standards, and yes, programming
standards. For C++, there is a real effect of having something in the
standard -- companies that refuse to use Boost will insist on the use of ISO
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk