Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-22 07:43:41
On 21 May 2014 at 18:06, John Maddock wrote:
> >> 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.
The statements were not made without evidence.
See the slides at
See the position paper at
As Robert Ramey pointed out in the talk, the values for boost-users
could be a chimera. We need some figures for the popularity of boost
related questions on stackoverflow. I may do this for C++ Now 2015.
-- 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