Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 13:06:21

>> On 21 May 2014 at 15:45, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> > I don't understand. Who are those hypothetical people holding back >
>> interesting new development?
>>
>> Start reading at:
>>
>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/c-11-td4648532.html
>
> That was a year ago, and it's just words. If I decide to write a new
> C++11-only library, archived messages in a year-old mailing list thread
> will not stop me.

I agree, it seems to me there is a great deal of hyperbole here: is 
Boost really dead and/or being held back?  Frankly I don't see it.

One could equally argue that the lack of C++11 libraries that push the 
boundaries is more due to the lack of killer ideas that absolutely need 
those features than anything else.  I'm temped to say that while C++98 
was a revolution, with many features like partial template 
specialization being a prerequisite for just "getting things done", 
C++11 is more of an evolution with nice to have, but possibly not 
critical features.

Don't get me wrong, there is interesting stuff in C++1y, stuff like 
constexp and user-defined-literals are very interesting indeed, but my 
experiments with these in the Multiprecision lib suggests compilers 
aren't quite there yet (compile times are too long to be really useful). 
  Oh, and don't get me started on noexcept which is basically untestable :-(

Looking forward to be proved wrong yours, John.