Subject: Re: [boost] RE process (prospective from a retired FreeBSD committer)...
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 12:34:56
On 1/31/2011 7:53 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:27:24 +0300,
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> Second, could you name, exactly, all libraries whose developers
>>>> expressed a need for individual releases?
>>> No, of course I can't name all of them exactly. Can you? I doubt
>> It's you who is on the mission to prove this modularization effort
>> is gonna help anybody.
> No, I know I can't prove any of this... and frankly I don't think I
> need to.
Yes you do. Simply throwing out catchwords gets
you nowhere in my book. From what I've seen, this
accounts for the vast majority of the arguments in
favor of "modularization." Any /real/ benefits
have gotten lost in the noise. It's quite possible
that there would be advantages. I just don't know
what they are.
> Most people understand that decoupling, where practical, is
> a good idea and that a monolithic Boost has lots of downsides.
Cynical translation: Most people see the word "decoupling"
and think good and the word "monolithic" and think "bad"
without necessarily having any understanding of what
it actually means in context.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk