Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
Date: 2014-05-22 02:28:51
----- Original Message -----
> From: "james" <james_at_[hidden]>
> On 22/05/2014 02:20, pmenso57_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > How about the burden of supplying a conforming compiler be put on MS
> > rather than on everyone else?
> How is that supposed to help *users* of Boost?
Long term over short term. Short term is to workaround every compiler bug under the sun--which is what Boost and many other libraries have done. The result is a mess. It provides little incentive for compilers to be fixed, and it causes every "portable" library to be written either in LCD C++ or be hacked up with alternate implementations for the ten different languages (i.e. compiler dialects) that it is targeting.
Compilers having sufficient incentive to conform (i.e. no one putting up with their B.S.) is good for all users in the long term. With the amount of work that has been done to workaround defective compilers, conforming C++ implementations could have been written a thousand times over.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk