Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 11:07:35
On 18 Oct 2013 at 16:37, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
> I agree with Joel, I always assumed (few years ago) that that's what would
> happen and I'm still surprised it's not seriously considered. I guess
> that's a discussion for post-modularization but I
> fear that this discussion will get in limbo and hurt boost like the issues
> with the review process.
I suspect some or all of these reasons have something to do with it:
1. Boost is much bigger now => more effort to modernise, more
maintainers to obtain buy in.
2. Boost is much older now => more maintainers are more emotionally
disengaged, have family commitments and other subtractors from free
time. I know when my first baby appears in a few months, I will be
choosing my free time very differently from the past.
3. A lot of people do genuinely think C++03 is "good enough".
4. A lot of people don't know how so much better programming in pure
C++11 is compared to grafting some C++11 onto a C++03 codebase. Until
they write greenfield C++11 projects, they won't fully know and
appreciate the game change.
5. Lack of decent Visual Studio support for C++11. That changes with
VS2013 of course, but it still affects a lot of developers e.g. my
opposition to C++11-ising my code would be mainly a "it won't be
portable yet" argument (which I ignored in AFIO which is some C++11
only of course).
I think Beman might have an idea in a v2.x Boost - one whose
libraries *solely* consist of C++11 upgraded libraries. Any libraries
from Boost v1.x not upgraded to C++11 get dropped from v2.x.
I look forward to the aghastness at the idea of dropping libraries
from Boost :)
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk