Subject: Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-28 12:24:38
Le 27/11/14 23:12, Robert Ramey a écrit :
> Gottlob Frege wrote
>> And, the reverse question (which Niall is asking), how much of Boost
>> has moved to C++11 or greater, even if a large(?) percentage of the
>> community hasn't.
> I agree that that is the question being asked. I just don't think any
> answer will change anything.
>> If I was to write a new library, that _could_ be old-C++ compatible,
>> but with extra work, should I put in that extra work?
> Of course that's up to the author. Boost has never required this and
> it's been noted in various places that this is not a requirement for
> a library to get accepted. It's been sufficient for any
> new library that it work with the current standard. People using older
> compilers are mostly maintaining old code. I doubt they really
> need new libraries. And writing for the current standard is soooo
> much easier.
>> I think there are interesting questions here for Boost and C++. Not
>> sure if Niall is heading towards those questions or others.
>> The further question, which I think should be discussed here or at
>> BoostCon/C++Now, is what is Boost's role *today*? Is boost still a
>> stepping stone to the standard? (I find that with the standard's new
>> pace, and with its push to use TS's, "stepping stone" is now a more
>> minor role for boost. For better or worse - ie I'm not sure if it is
>> good for the standard.)
>> Or is boost now a place for good libraries, most of which aren't
>> general enough to be in std, but are really good and really useful
>> when you need them?
>> Or is boost a maintenance effort for old libraries for older
>> compilers. (I don't think Boost is just that, but is it part of its
> Of course this is the key question. My views on these questions
> are pretty simple
> a) The C++ world needs many more good libraries
Agreed. I would like so see something like your incubator as a repertory
of independent C++ libraries. One thing we need are versioned libraries
with its explicit dependencies. The other is a way to install them on
the user work space.
> b) Adding many more libraries to the standard is not sustainable
Why do you think this? The standard committee is asking permanently for
more contributors, more libraries. There is so much to add. This doesn't
mean that this doesn't takes time.
> c) Therefore, the role of boost should shift away to making libraries
> for the standard toward making good C++ libraries in general.
I would like to see more Boost libraries proposed for the standard. Your
Serialization library would surely have a good feedback, once it is
adapted to C++14.
I would like to see a Boost C++14 libraries with much of the current
Boost libraries ported to C++14, removing all adherences to old
compilers. Only in this case we can pretend yet that Boost could be a
trampoline to concrete standard proposal. C++14 and C++98 are so different.
This C++14 library should be modular and the user should be able to
install each library independently.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk