Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 09:51:57

On 21 May 2014 at 13:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> I still think the comparisons with C11 aren't relevant and don't help
> make your point.

Yeah, I should explain that.

One of the central tenets of my presentation at C++ Now and its
accompanying position paper is that C++ 11/14 does not deliver much
useful to its use case as THE systems programming language over C11.
I posited that if you looked at the new features in C++ 11/14 which
C11 does not have from the perspective of a Python runtime engineer,
you saw almost zero improvements. Or, put another way, C++ 11/14's
new features are mainly introspective and inward facing - I believe I
used the phase "navel-gazing". My claim was that this was fine for
one major standards release, but probably unwise for a second major
standards release and definitely a bad idea if continued for a third.

I followed that claim with a further claim that stopping deliberately
ignoring C++ ABI management would be a major tick in favour of C++ as
the future systems programming language, and for that we need to
reawaken the type export feature, and I went into some depth about
how to do that. Otherwise it will continue to be C as people's first
choice for new code (indeed C has always been favoured over C++ for
new open source code), and C++ may end up turning into a Haskell
variant used only by a specialist elite for low latency and HPC

Hence the constant comparison with C11. Does that make sense now?


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at