Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 19:13:16

I think this is a highly interesting discussion. I just wonder: where can we have it? On Do we need to create a new forum, "Future of Native Development"?

The people that will soon scream OT do (or will) have a point; Boost has (probably) decided, intrinsically, to be C++ only, and any usefulness from even C++ versions, such as Managed C++, is a pure coincidence.

I will not comment it here anymore, in order not to stretch out this tangent too far. Perhaps it is best if we (such as you and I, initially) bring it off-list, till we figure out a proper forum?


On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Tom Brinkman wrote:

>>> It is actually more relevant than 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.
> Well said. Good summary, although as noted, I disagree with your
> conclusion.
> The larger question is -- what has gone wrong with boost? Why do so many
> libraries
> languish in the review queue. Why has the the C++ standard taken so long to
> get
> enough momentum to pass through committee.
> In my view, C++ is tired. Boost is an experiment of a particular style of
> development,
> that being functional, generic, orthogonal and "non-hieararchical".
> Boost through its heavily template ladden libraries offered this style of
> development,
> and it had great appeal to those who had grown tired of object oriented
> style of
> development.
> The experience of those of us that have developed with this style over the
> years has
> been mixed. Like anything, somethings are nice, somethings are more trouble
> than there worth.
> Fortunately, for those of us that have an appreciation for functional
> programming
> will still be highly relevent in the future. The reason has primarily has
> to do with
> parralel programming which lends its self very nicely to functional
> programming, which is
> what boost is all about.
> The way I explain it, functional programming is just a variation of
> procedural programming
> with a different way of passing around state.
> Unfortunately, this advanced programming style is often abused in hideous
> ways.
> Particularly, when they are used in small utilty libraries which should be
> simple and
> general purpose, and not push a particular style of development.
> I've already made this point, but I'll make it again. Utility libraries
> should
> be agnositic and usable across the widest variety of programming styles,
> that being procedural, objected orienteated or functional.
> This boost::log library should not be approved without a simple "C" friendly
> api. That being
> a printf style api.
> Failure to include a "printf" style api will only continue to marginalize
> boost further to
> small subset of c++ developers. Most develpers will look at the api without
> a printf and go, HUH?
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at