Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2

Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-19 03:07:38

On 5/17/14, 6:30 PM, John Maddock wrote:
>> Well, let us iterate the libraries which were presented this C++ Now
>> conference which are not in Boost and have no (to my knowledge)
>> intention to enter Boost. Some of these may not be C++11, it was hard
>> to tell from the talk description, but a majority were:
>>
>> * Versor
>
> Interesting, if very domain specific.
>
>> * Turtle Mock
>> * BoundedInteger
>> * Mach7
>
> Currently has no docs on the web, so I can't judge.
>
>> * Octopus
>
> Unable to find that one.
>
>> * HPX
>
>  From a well known Booster, depends on Boost and is Boost-licenced. Let's hope we see it
> here soon, although it looks like it may still be experimental?
>
>> * Metashell (or rather its underlying libraries)
>> * libcppa (though Boost.Actor which is based on this is expected)
>> * CppComponents
>
> Interestingly also Boost-licenced, and from a Boost contributor.
>
>> * Some sort of C++ idiomatic XML library
>> * Doppl
>
> Couldn't find it.
>
>> * sfrp
>>
>> Need I say any more?
>
> Well it would be nice of some of those library authors could chime in with their thoughts,
> otherwise we don't really know one way or another?

I see no difference with what we see now and, say, 10 years ago. There will
always be a lot more non-Boost libraries out in the open. The barrier to
entry is simply very high. On the other hand, the barrier to entry into
C++ Now is not that high. There is no grueling peer-review, for example.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.ciere.com
http://boost-spirit.com
http://www.cycfi.com/