Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 19:12:06
On 16 May 2014 at 20:23, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > 8. Reusable utilities in a submitted library need merging into some
> > common utilities library which follows the STL conventions. Other
> > than that, no source code, naming conventions, namespace or anything
> > else needs converting or changing.
> I do think there is a lot to be said for consistency in naming and API (and
> documentation, as you wrote :) ).
Thing is, it's a royal PITA to convert over for an existing codebase.
Just asking for the docs to be converted is a big ask.
Besides, unless it's intended for the STL eventually, copying STL
naming conventions isn't as important as excellent code coverage,
testing, docs etc.
> > Thoughts?
> Part of the value of Boost v1 currently is branding. Any group of developers
> could create 'a set of modern-idiomatic c++ libraries', with some
> equivalence to some Boost libraries (or as a fork of them), appealing to the
> modern needs that arise when you already have C++11/14 as a base.
> However, Boost has a greater chance than any other group of creating
> something credible and that the rest of the C++ community can get behind,
> partly because of expertise, but also partly because of branding. So, make
> sure such a v2 fork is called 'Boost' or is definitively 'the son of Boost'
> to keep that. I'm still not certain about how the Boost community operates
> and makes decisions (partly consensus, partly not), but I suspect there's
> some work to do there to get people on-board with something like this.
I completely agree.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk