Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Demand for Boost libraries - was Math tools polynomial enhancements
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-02 00:30:16

On 10/31/2015 12:10 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps because "concepts" are not part of C++ and unless concepts
become codified Boost authors have nothing to work with in adding
"concepts" to their library.

> I feel like I'm really missing something.

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