From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 11:53:04
Jeff Garland wrote:
> BTW, I have seen the lack of a documented format become a reason to
> not use Boost serialization on a project.
No doubt this has happened - and for good reason. I such a format
is required - This "right choice" is probably not boost serialization.
Boost Serializaition has (in my view) lots of appeal - and its
applicable to a very wide class of problems. But it can't be
all things to all people (an all host languages). Sorry, but I
think different tool developed with a different set of
priority goals is required for that.
>> 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 standard C++.
I know my view on this subject isn't widely held. We've touched
upon it before and maybe we will again - but for now we're
frying other fish.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk