Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 05:21:01
On 17 May 2016 at 20:59, Peter Dimov wrote:
> David Sankel wrote:
> > Boost cannot evolve the way it has in the past. When it was getting
> > started, we didn't have over-representation of groups who benefit from the
> > status-quo. We didn't have the idea of servicing the "Boost community"
> > instead of the "C++ community".
> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. What is this hypothetical
> "Boost community" that is supposedly being served? What are those
> over-represented groups? Are you referencing something with which I am not
This reply surprises me. A *lot* of people have been expressing this
sentiment during the past four years, myself and Stephan Kelly pop to
mind in particular. A thread not too long ago entitled "Boost is
dead" or something like that was a *very* long running thread.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk