Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-25 18:22:29

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> maybe some of you have already see the Howard Hinnant presentation at
> CppCOn2015 [1] about his new data-v2 library [2]. My prototype of
> Boost.Chrono/Date library ([3] ] was based on the Howard original library,
> but when we want to reach the maximum of performances we need to use a
> specific date class for each usage. This is what Howard explains in his
> marvelous presentation ans his tiny date library
>
> My post here wants to know if there is interest in a library providing
> what H.H. date library provides in Boost.
> Note that his data-v2 library yet doesn't provides as much as Boost.Date
> provides but IMHO it is much elegant and efficient. If there is enough
> interest, I will request you to do a first review of the H.H. Date-V2
> library.
> Then once we have a consensus I will make my POC Chrono/Date library ready
> for review.
>

I had the pleasure of seeing Howard's presentation at CppCon, and it made a
very favorable impression.

Starting about 33:55 in, Howard does a comparison of several libraries,
including Boost Date-Time V1, and Jeff Garland's Boost Date-Time V2. If you
don't want to watch the whole presentation, at least watch the
"Inter-Library Comparison" segment.

> H.H. Date-V2 is under MIT license, which IIRC is compatible with the Boost
> license. I don't know yet if would need to add this license, as my POC [3]
> is already a good starting point, nevertheless, I would like to know if
> there could be any issues about having the source under both licenses.
>
> We should ask Tony Sebro of the Software Freedom Conservancy. He is
Boost's lawyer, and is very knowledgeable about open source licensing
questions.

--Beman