Subject: Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 21:06:08
On April 2, 2015 8:17:48 PM EDT, "VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira" <vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2015-04-02 15:06 GMT-03:00 Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>:
> > I think Boost needs to very substantially increase the value add on
> > offer to library authors over what is on offer at present.
> The only troubles I got trying to write a Boost-like libraries is the
> excessive NIH syndrome. Tools like btool and quickdoc, which are a
> pain to
> use and are no better than the competitors.
Those tools were created long before there were true competitors. Whether there are viable alternatives now is not really the issue. To switch to something new requires proving that the new tool does what the old one does and that it improves on the old tool significantly. Otherwise, there's no incentive to switch.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk