Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 14:01:37
On 20 Nov 2009, at 18:30, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Tom Brinkman wrote:
>> Neverthless, boost needs to keep on pushing the envelope.
>> Functional programming is the future and boost is where you come to see
>> whats possible in that domain. I would hate to see that change.
>> If boost's focus is switched to addressing the needs of day to day
>> "average" programmers,
>> I would loose interest. I want boost developers to continue to reach
>> for the stars.
>> If "average" developers happen to find boost useful, of course they can use it,
>> but they need to appreciate where boost priorities have been and use
>> it appropriately.
The second line on the boost website is:
We emphasize libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use.
The users page says:
Why should an organization use Boost?
In a word, Productivity. Use of high-quality libraries like Boost speeds initial development, results in fewer bugs, reduces reinvention-of-the-wheel, and cuts long-term maintenance costs.
To me, that reads as encouraging average developers to make use of boost in long-term projects. If boost doesn't want to help day-to-day programmers, that's fine, but it shouldn't advertise it self as a library which helps long-term maintenance.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk