Re: [boost] [c++11]

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-15 04:10:06

> That depends on what you consider supported by Boost. A lot of the
> courtesy support for the native compilers for many OSes out there seems
> to be dying out.

That may well be due to lack of testing resources - Boost authors can only 
suppport obscure compilers if we have someone running tests for them and/or 
someone willing to supply patches.  For example I notice we don't have any 
Intel test runnners at present which is a real shame...

>> > Was this C++11-only requirement part of the original project plan, and
>> > why didn't anyone object to it then?
>>
>> Expecting authors of new libraries to refrain from using features of
>> the current C++ standard seems a bit ridiculous to me.  Not everyone
>> will be able to use C++11-only libraries, but why should those users
>> hold everyone else back?
>
> I used to see Boost as an empowering library, enhancing and evening out
> the playing field among the compilers out there.
>
> Some seem to see it as a playground to gain recognition and fast-track
> things into the coming standard libraries, instead of producing
> something usable in the real world.

Ouch.  Boost has always been about championing the "next thing" and always 
been ahead of the compiler curve, if that wasn't the case we'd still be 
targetting VC6.  Yesterdays bleading edge is tomorrows mainstream.

> I guess it's losing the goal and aim I perceived, if it ever had it to
> begin with. To me, it feels like a betrayal from the library I have
> spent many manhours supporting.
>
> I've been on this rant before on the lists, in the big sprawling
> discussions about the feasibility of a Boost 2.0, but it seems nothing
> was learned then, and I don't expect anything to be learned going
> forward either.
>
> As for limiting Boost authors, for leaf libraries that end users can
> avoid, sure, there might not be too much harm. It's creeping into the
> very core libraries as well, which _does_ bother me, as it can render
> whole swaths of the library utterly unusable.

For example?

> In the end, we need a definitive statement from whatever cabal is
> controlling Boost, so we don't get these kinds of discussion
> resurrections every few months. All this causes is a lack of faith in
> the project.

Cabal?  Well that would be you then - you have as much say over Boost's 
future direction as anyone else.

I hadn't noticed this discussion cropping up every few months either, but 
then again I tend to file a lot of stuff in the "lifes too short" folder ;-)

John.