Boost logo

Boost :

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:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 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

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