Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers

Subject: Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers
From: Isidor Zeuner (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 15:44:09

> 
> On 15 May 2010, at 18:40, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> 
> >> You can still provide binaries for certain distributions. For instance, Ubuntu-8.04 comes with boost-1.34 and libstdc++.so.6. That won't change.
> > 
> > I think this is the best direction for solving the ABI compatibility
> > issue. Why should a library vendor bother? The library vendor would
> > sacrifice code quality if he strives for binary compatibility. A
> > distributor, however, can decide to make binary compatibility
> > priority, and keep the same boost version for a long time.
> > 
> > So, if I need long-lasting binary compatibility, I can buy RHEL and be
> > sure everything remains stable. But the developers of all the bundled
> > software don't need to bother.
> 
> There is one big difference between libstdc++ and boost.
> 
> libstdc++ fixes bugs in old versions, while keeping the ABI fixed. boost makes almost no attempt to apply bug fixes to old versions.
> 

libstdc++ has to, because it is bound to implementing well-defined
requirements. Boost wants to explore how to get the most out of C++,
which naturally goes with a more progressive strategy.

Once boost components get standardized, compiler vendors will run for
them to carve them out of stone anyway.

> I'm not claiming it should, but saying that a distributor can deal with keeping everything stable is unreasonable, unless you expect RHEL to keep their own boost distribution, where they backport bug fixes.
> 

Well, this backport-instead-of-upgrade policy is pretty much the
reason why people buy RHEL. Almost 5 years of boost-1.33.1 don't
come without a reason.

Best regards,

Isidor