From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 20:37:28
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these
> tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into
> which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere,
> to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can
> do better than the rest of the world".
I'm torn on this subject. Even though at some level I agree with you
that Boost should be concentrating on the core library development. I
also see that the Boost ideals, and the Boost community provides what
AFAIK is a unique development structure. We are a group of developers
that don't shy away from trying to implement the ideal in all areas.
Having my roots in knowledge heavy AI fields, and content heavy game
development, I recognize the essential nature of good development tools.
So I'm afraid of what separating, or jettisoning, the tools we have.
Which, I guess, raises the specter of forming a "Boost Tools"
(sub)group. We might even be able to attract more tool developers in
such a framework, as it would be attractive to more developers. Sorry to
ramble... But thinking about this just brings up many issues in my head ;-)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk