Subject: Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-25 06:37:12
On 24 Nov 2014 at 21:53, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> Many things are a lot easier with C++11/14, we all know that. But what is
> the point of creating a list of libraries _requiring_ a C++11 compiler? Code
> which does not use C++11/14 features is still compilable with modern
> compilers just fine. Also, it's still possible to use older code together
> with newer libraries. The only purpose I would see is to tell people which
> libraries they can't use if they are stuck with older compilers for some
> Sorry I miss the point of this discussion and will shut up.
You may remember my C++ Now 2014 talk and white paper was exceedingly
gloomy about Boost - lots of empirical trend graphs pointing at two
year long trend declines and a fair bit of hyperbole from me about
poisonous anti-change anti-innovation anti-process cultures etc.
Six months later I'm feeling that something is changing, but I don't
know what exactly or how profound it might be. In thinking about
measurable proxies of change I could go examine, I can see that
studying C++ 11 only Boost libraries could be considered a proxy for
"green shoots" of new growth in Boost.
Hence my hypothesis, and investigating that might yield an answer to
whether Boost is going to resurge in a big way or something
I appreciate it's a bit abstract. Hopefully when you're evaluating
the C++ Now submissions it'll seem worthy to you then.
-- 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