Re: [boost] Review - boost::log

Subject: Re: [boost] Review - boost::log
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 18:11:30

On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> On 03/15/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Brinkman wrote:
>>>> So, what you are saying is that "around there", people prefer to use one
>> "glue" language, C, to another one,
>>>> and that the glue will affect all code to make it less
>> "extreme/templated"?
>> 
>> Yeah, thats about it.  "C" is the glue language that everyone can use.  Like
>> it or
>> hate it, its still around, and still the most popular language for the
>> widest
>> variety of programming tasks.
>> 
>> Although, for the most part, I still prefer boost style "C++" for my
>> own projects where I have full control of the code.
>> 
>> When it comes to being a library writer, you need to understand your
>> intended audience.    If it is the intent of the library author to limit
>> his users to a small subset of C/C++ developers, that is is his choice, of
>> course.
>> 
>> I would perfer that boost developers think bigger and target a larger
>> audience.
> 
> Guys, please, move the flame wars of C vs. C++ to another topic. I've expressed my point regarding Boost.Log rather clearly.

It is actually more relevant that a "flame war." We are discussing how a log API should look to be most useful (in terms of depth and width), and that discussion pertains to all (new) libraries of Boost: do we want them to be used by the larger C populace? How much are we ready to sacrifice in expressivity (or succinctness) in order to widen our target? Should we have C wrappers for the most "utilitarian" libraries, such as a log library?

My point is that Boost is a C++ library and should not care at all about the impact on C developers, or people who happen to be used to that "glue language," even for their C++ development. I still think it is a valid discussion to have.
 
/David