Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 09:48:56
"Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
Boost 2.0 is a alternative distro of modular standalone Boost
libraries which can be each downloaded separately. Each has
contemporary per commit CI testing and is nightly dashboarded by
quality score by a web service under the 19 quality score headings
listed at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BestPracticeHandbook
(still unfinished, but nearly there).
APIBind allows the library end user to dependency inject what
dependencies that library uses. This allows a Boost library, in a
single codebase, to be part of both the monolithic Boost 1.x distro
and to be modular and standalone and part of the Boost 2.x distro.
Motivated library maintainers port their Boost 1.x library to the
APIBind platform, and therefore can be part of both 1.x and 2.x
distros if they want.
Those libraries not ported to APIBind remain in the 1.x distro, which
I would assume will gradually fade into obsolescence over time. This
makes sense, as if a maintainer is not motivated to do the port then
it seems proper that library should gracefully deprecate.
This is a vision to the current Boost. Niall is prefectly free to propose
but for lot's of reasons, it's extremely unlikely that Boost could reach a
consensus which would agree to such changes.
However, there is an option which would be acceptable to Boost and it's
members. Niall could easily create a forked version of that part of boost
which meets his criteria. All the proposed ideas could be applied here. If
Niall is correct and realization of his vision is inevitable, it will become
clear eventually and any path forward would become clear. If Niall is
incorrect, this fork will die a painless death.
And there is precedent for one person taking an idea, developing it with the
idea that it may someday be adopted by Boost. I'm speaking of course of the
Boost Library Incubator. The Incubator hasn't reached a level of success
which would support a consensus for absorption into Boost, but it has had
some success. The future of the Boot Library Incubator is still open -
which is just fine.
The only concern I have about all this is the usage of the name "Boost".
Usage of such a name has become quite valuable and users and public have
come to know that, in the context of C++, it means a reputation for quality
which has been built over the last 15 years with the sweat of 100's of
persons. I would very much hate to see this name freely usable by anyone
who want's to leverage on it for unknown and/or unendorsed purposes.
In hindsight, I also regret naming my talk "Boost 2.0" which I would not
like to see confused with the current proposal.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk