Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Motivation for Boost version evaporating
From: Jamie Allsop (ja11sop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-13 06:21:28
Beman Dawes wrote:
> The motivation for a Boost version of <chrono> seems to be evaporating
> since GCC 4.4.0 has shipped with an implementation and Microsoft has
> also signaled they intend to ship a C++0x standard library
> implementation sooner rather than later.
Ok but that subset of compilers probably captures much less than 10% of
those in use (most of our builds are still using 3.4.6) and back when I
was in an MS shop we always fixed on a specific compiler for a product,
which was always an older version. It will be some time before many of
us will have access to a vendor supplied <chrono>.
IMHO <chrono> is one of those very important libraries and having a
boost implementation is important. This is one library I see re-invented
time after time for many reasons, mostly performance related. <chrono>
all but removes the need for that, or at least provides the necessary
interface for extended implementations.
> Thus I'm no longer interested in working on a Boost version.
I'm not sure I would see your argument above as strong enough reason,
but I can see where you are coming from - if someone is willing to take
this on (I don't have the time right now either) I'd really welcome that.
> If anyone else would like to take it on, that's OK with me, but I
> don't see enough benefit to Boost to make the effort worthwhile.
On the contrary I do not think that is the case. In fact even when we
have available compiler provided implementations of boost equivalents we
still use the boost versions as it provides us with more control over
how we migrate and evolve our codebase.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk