Re: [boost] [metaparse] Practical usefulness

Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] Practical usefulness
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 20:03:46

On 2 Jun 2015 at 23:18, Phil Endecott wrote:

> christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > I feel I have to slightly steer the review in 
> > the right (IMO) direction, which means in the direction where the review is 
> > based on the quality of the library and documentation, not on pure 
> > formalities.
> 
> I agree with your steering direction.
> 
> So let me ask a question: how useful is this library in practice, 
> beyond "toy examples"?
> 
> Was this library developed with a real application, i.e. use in 
> a product, as its motivation, or was it written to test the 
> limits of what is possible using metaprogramming?

I think back before the C++ 11 STL the question of usefulness was 
more important than now as Boost becomes more heterogeneous. I note 
how many reviewers of Metaparse said they are not experts in that 
field, or would even expect to use Metaparse any time soon 
themselves.

It's like with Edward's VMD library. I still cannot see the point of 
it. But others said it was useful to their niche cases, and VMD was 
clearly well designed, well tested, well polished and would be well 
maintained with Edward as maintainer. So I felt it was a good 
addition to Boost despite me personally not getting its point.

In other words, I think we're moving from an era of "many need this 
so we'll build it" into an era of "I think this is cool, so I'll 
build it and if one or two other people come to use it then great".

If I am right on that, it has profound consequences on what Boost is 
and how it works going into the future, especially as there is little 
incentive to buy into individual ivory towers from a user's 
perspective if that tower is locked into its maintainer.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/