Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 01:11:45

Thanks John.

Well, for the most part, I agree with the larger point that you have made.

However, for some reason, people don't apply that same standard to
boost.  Because boost is open-source, the source code is obviously
available so people will invariably take a peak at it.

If what they see scares them, and then they find out that the library
may in fact have only one one active maintainer, it can be a real
source of concern.

Its strange though, because MPL is the most difficult to understand
library of them all, but in the view of many it is boost's most
important and valuable contribution.  I think that we all have made an
exception for that library, considering its overall importance.
Others probably feel the same for some of the other core boost
libraries.  Because they are so important, they would get fixed
eventually, by someone other than the core developer, if it ever
became necessary.

Its all the other non-core boost libraries that people worry about.  A
big complex template laden library, in a non-critical vertical, with
only one active maintainer, in source code that appears to be
completely unmaintainable.

These secondary boost libraries are the concern.  For me, its not a
big deal.  I know what the core libraries are.  However, if your not
an active boost user, you wont be able to  identify what these core
libraries are, so you just get worried about boost as a whole.

The solution, as expressed on this forum many times, is to somehow
seperate out the core libraries from the non-core libraries.

Tom Brinkman