Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 20:21:04
> > > > > Tomorrow at 11am after Eric's talk I'll be presenting at C++ Now a
> > > > > review of the upcoming C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for asking, but what is a C++11/14 mandatory library?
> > >
> > > Libraries which cannot compile without -std=c++11 or -std=c++14. Some
> > > (not many) can work with VS2015 or even VS2013 too.
> > What's the point of introducing this distinction?
> There are libraries which require -std=c++11 or -std=c++14. After
> studying ten of these libraries, I answer these questions:
> 1. Why do these libraries require C++ 11 or 14? From a user
>From my perspective, this is mostly relevant for the library writer, not the
> 2. Is there a common theme of the most popular C++ 11/14 features
Perhaps generally interesting but totally unrelated and insignificant to
> 3. Is there a common theme in choice of library design and use of
> third party libraries?
What would this information give you? Finding new 'design patterns'? This is
the only question I'd support going after as it would help other library
authors to take advantage from 'best practices' and 'lessons learnt'.
> 4. Do these new libraries take notice of one another and integrate
> themselves well with other libraries, or are they ivory towers?
Again, what's so special about using C++11/14 in relation to this analysis?
There are good libraries and bad libraries, open ones and closed ones. I
don't see a relation to any language whatsoever.
> 5. How many of these forthcoming libraries explicitly seek to
> contribute to future C++ standardization?
Ok. As far as I remember, all of the Boost libraries which made it into the
standard so far were written in plain old C++03. So my question again - what
is the relation to C++11/14? You're asking a question pertaining to the
author's willingness to contribute to the Standard. Nothing specific to
C++11/14 here. And, FWIW, you can contribute to the Standard without being a
Boost author of a 'C++11/14 mandatory library'.
> 6. Are there techniques used in one library which would make a lot of
> sense to be used in another library, but for some reason are not?
Sure, great question, but unrelated to C++11/14 as well!
One More question:
You connect this analysis of 'C++11/14 mandatory libraries' (a
classification I find to be deeply troubling, btw) with 'rebooting Boost'.
Is that intended or just a coincidence?
Regardless, my impression deepens, that all of this is an attempt to take
over Boost for your own (commercial) interests and to force your own library
onto everybody else. An attempt which I will not support.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk