Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 20:15:54

Sure,  I'm always in a mood for a good debate.  Pick the forum.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:13 PM, David Bergman <
David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I think this is a highly interesting discussion. I just wonder: where can
> we have it? On www.lambda.org? 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?
>
> /David
>
> 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:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>