Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-15 11:41:19
On 15 May 2015 at 6:28, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > APIBind is merely a time saving layer which does some stuff for you.
> > You can do it manually, of course, like ASIO.
> Well, other parts of your post suggest that perfectly useful libraries
> will be 'deprecated' or something unless they are somehow migrated
> to this new world. Did I misunderstand?
My statement is equivalent to this: libraries not maintained (with
complete C++ 11/14 support) will stop being used over a finite time.
> > The authors of the libraries I reviewed appear very favourable to
> > adopting APIBind as it saves them hassle, especially with supporting
> > Boost.Test without the Boost.Test dependency. The Boost.Config
> > emulation is handy too.
> That might be good, but it does not explain how this tables supports your
> proposal for Boost 2.0? You've hand-picked a few libraries, ignoring
> half of libraries in review queue and created a table that shows no
> real convergence on anything. It hardly supports your proposal.
There is a ton of convergence in the C++ 11/14 libraries. Strikingly
so. And away from the 03 libraries.
I didn't examine the 03 libraries because they must adhere to Boost
1.x design requirements implicitly, and therefore have their hands
tied in 03.
> Now, the proposal *might* be good, it's just your statistics seems
> not a good argument for it.
Lack of data points so far. This time next year the future should be
clearer to more people.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk