Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] Demand for Boost libraries - was Math tools polynomial enhancements
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-31 12:10:55

On 10/31/15 4:50 AM, John Maddock wrote:

> Also intrigued, but also have other things to do.... would be easy for
> this to feature creep into a compile-time algebra library!

I think it would be hard to keep out. Also I think it would be very
difficult to keep it from growing.

I'm actually more concerned about the demand for such a thing. I think
it's very compelling. But as a member of the Program Committee for
CPPcon 2015 I was very much struck by the lack of interest in topics
related to mathematics and mathematical thinking. In particular there
was a proposal for Algorithmic Differentiation implemented via TMP. In
spite of strong advocacy on my part, other committee members were
convinced that it was too advanced mathematically for the expected
attendees. They might well have been right - if they were - it's even
more disturbing to me.

One thing that we really, really, really need in Boost is better
feedback on which libraries are actually used and how much they are
used. I feel like we're spending a lot of time developing stuff that
few if any programmers actually find useful. Sometimes they're right and
the ideas just aren't that useful and other times they're wrong and
they're just don't get it.

This goes double for the C++ committee. How is it that years of effort
and discussion and development can be invested in "Concepts" while
getting Boost authors to include "concepts" in their documentation and
boost concept checking in their code is like pulling teeth.

I feel like I'm really missing something.

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at