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

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 08:40:37

Tom Brinkman wrote:
>
> The larger question is -- what has gone wrong with boost?

That presupposes something has gone wrong with Boost.

> Why do so many libraries languish in the review queue.

People are busy.  I only recently volunteered to be a review manager.  I'm working with the author to ready the library for review, but it takes time for both of us.

> Why has the the C++ standard taken so long to get enough
> momentum to pass through committee.

Many (all?) committee members are volunteers, though some, I presume, have at least some financial backing from their employer.  It is time consuming and not "their real job."  Many of us sit back and await their efforts rather than being involved.

> In my view, C++ is tired.  Boost is an experiment of a
> particular style of development, that being functional,
> generic, orthogonal and "non-hieararchical".

Curiously, most developers at my company are only recently willing to jump on the Boost bandwagon and many are going at it with abandon.  There were a great many years in which "template" was a dirty word when used for anything other than container-style genericity.  Now they recognize the performance opportunities and other benefits and are willing to accept the problems to get them.  That's the opposite trend from what you've described.

> 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.

Your opinion and experience clearly differs from that of others here.  Without objective information, there is no way to gauge which is the more common, though one assumes this list is self selecting in favor of the Boost style.

> Unfortunately, this advanced programming style is often
> abused in hideous ways.

So many things are.

> Particularly, when they are used in small utilty libraries
> which should be simple and general purpose, and not push a
> particular style of development.

"As simple as possible, but no simpler" is always good.  That, of course, must be weighed against useful flexibility and measured performance.

> 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.

Appealing to a wider audience is always nice, but not if it violates important principles.  In the logging case, Boost.Format is a nice compromise.

_____
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.