Re: [boost] "Software Development using the C++ Boost Library", book in preparatiion

Subject: Re: [boost] "Software Development using the C++ Boost Library", book in preparatiion
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-17 08:58:37

Daniel J. Duffy wrote:

Please stop top posting: http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html#quoting.

> Some feedback and background to this project:
>
> . "type erasure" is well-known in several other different
> contexts, under different names. My point was that Function
> (which I have applied to financial 3D PDE problems with
> multi-array) is a good way to solve these problems (using
> design patterns).

Well, I'm apparently displaying my ignorance, because I didn't know of it by any other names.

> In fact,  'Type Erasure" does not seem to be a widely used
> term; I could not find it in Alexandrescu, Josuttis... Of
> course, google.

The second printing of _C++ Template Metaprogramming_, by Abrahams and Gurtovoy, was printed in December 2004 and it defines and discussions type erasure in §9.7.  Wikipedia defines the term more generally and references an article from 2002.  It may be that Dave extended the meaning to cover what was done in MPL, but he's a better one to address that.  I see type erasure in Boost.Signals documentation going back to 2003.  My point is that the term has been in use, particularly within the Boost community, for a long time.

> . My remark 3 was a response to Jesse Perla's comments. The
> idea is that you don't want vendor stuff being mixed up with
> boost. That should be clear.

TR1 isn't "vendor stuff," so your comment still isn't clear.  Not mixing vendor specific extensions with standard C++ is certainly laudable.

> . Fusion; I did not say I knew it, again it was a response
> and a queston to Jesse.

I acknowledged that in my comment.  My point was that you quickly decided to include Fusion in the book, along with other libraries that you obviously don't know about, which suggests that the information you provide on the library will not be from extensive, real world experience, making its inclusion suspect.  You may manage to do a fine job on Fusion, particularly if you get input from experts, but that doesn't mean there isn't room to be suspicious.

> . The status of the book (now that you ask); I am publishing
> it myself by my own company (I mention this in my first
> post!) ,

Your first post happens to include an e-mail address at datasim.nl and indicates that the publisher is Datasim Press, Ltd.  However, there is no mention that it is your company or that you even work there (the e-mail address could have been assigned to you for the purpose of the book).  Nevertheless, the link wasn't clear and I did gloss over those details.  Thank you for clarifying it.

> have used boost for some years (several courses, see
> my site www.datasimfinancial.com as wel as boost thread with
> examples) and am porting code to it. At this moment we have
> about 12 chapters ready and have already integrated some
> libaries into production code. "In preparation" thus means:

I'm pleased to hear there currently is much more to the book than I inferred.

> we are writing it up. I have done the feasibility leg-work. I
> reckon the book will be ready by Summer 2010. We have a

That seems aggressive given the time necessary to learn entirely new and significant libraries like Fusion, Phoenix, and Geometry, never mind writing the content and examples and getting reviewer feedback.

> number of reviewers since a while. Look at my original list
> of chapters again, most chapters are well under way. For the
> record, I have written 8 books, so I knew how the process
> works. I hope these remarks clear things up for you.

I'm sorry I came off so negative, but the rapidity with which you adopted new libraries to cover, along with other aspects of the original post and your responses in this thread, gave me to think of your post as a "help me with my homework assignment" request.

> Referencing the libraries: is it not allowed to ask just to
> make sure that I am using the correct terminology?

It is certainly reasonable, yet you made a fundamental error that the sources I mentioned should have made plain by referring to "the Boost library."  Had your question been, "Is it correct to refer to Boost by just 'Boost' and to the libraries as either 'Boost C++ Libraries' or 'Boost libraries'?", and had the question as posed not been among the other concerns I raised, there would have been no problem.

I hope your book lives up to its promise.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.