Subject: Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-21 17:58:12
> All I'm saying is that gtest is gaining acceptance because it supports
> its community of users in a reasonable way. Boost.Test is losing
> ground and has been losing ground for 5+ years.
> How often do you see anyone out there making a library that duplicates
> the functionality of a boost library? I haven't seen it happen very
> often and at the moment, the only example I can think of is
> Boost.Test. There are MULTIPLE test frameworks out there that are
> gaining users at the expense of Boost.Test.
FYI - I know you can find a few C++ serialization libraries which claim to
have some advantages over boost serialization.
But I'm wondering if there isn't a larger issue here. Boost has implicitly
required that a new library submission not address some functionality
already in boost. But there have been a few exceptions: state machine and
geometry and polygon. Maybe we should be more open to accepting
libraries which might compete with existing ones?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/test-boost-test-owner-unresponsive-to-persistent-problems-for-multiple-years-tp4670242p4671464.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk