Subject: Re: [boost] This AFIO review (was: Re: [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday)
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-23 11:28:44
> I would have just loved to do as you say, but I was trapped. I knew
> that those people who have openly declared war on everything I do
> would do their absolute best to FUD this review as a way of point
> scoring and settling grudges. They have been quite literally waiting
> for this moment with anticipation of "taking me down a peg", and you
> can see that happening right now.
> So I decided that absolute transparency, even if that hurt my
> chances, was the best policy. I think I have better chances this
> route than the alternative which would allow the FUD to succeed more
> easily because it could then be implied that I was hiding something
> or lying to people.
Clever move! You not only try to push an apparently not-quite-ready library into Boost, but now you're using the criticism voiced against this attempt as an argument in favor of doing it.
Please note that I made every effort for my criticism voiced here to be in relation to the code, not the person. I'm not sure why you take all of this as a personal 'vendetta' as you put it. I have no personal matter to resolve with you Niall, I have not even met you personally. All I'm concerned with is the library you're presenting.
> > > Again, instead of jumping to conclusions based on ranting by a person
> > > with a well known personal vendetta against me, I'd suggest go read
> > > the documentation.
> > Will do. I was at Table 1.4 which prompted my recent questions about
> > performance.
> I couldn't find a Table 1.4.
> Did you mean Table 1.5, the one comparing NoSQL databases with the
> naÃ¯ve iostreams and AFIO key-value store and where AFIO comes off
> looking particularly badly?
> ned Productions Limited Consulting
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk