Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 14:11:22

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 12:09:32 PM UTC-5, Nevin Liber wrote:
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 11:37, Robert Ramey <ra..._at_[hidden] <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> > There is one big lesson from all this: 
> > 
> > a) Boost is not a company - we don't take direction from the top. 
> > b) Boost is not a government - we actually do something. 
> > c) Boost is a religion - want something changed, start preaching.  Get 
> > other people on board. Convince people people to start doing something. 
> > 
>
> Boost is not a religion.  It's a set of tools; no more, no less. 
>
> Does Boost have to evolve?  Of course it does, because the world around it 
> has evolved.  It came about when it was 13 years between releases of the 
> standard, and there were a lot of obvious-in-retrospect libraries 
> (especially vocabulary types) missing (shared_ptr, function, optional, 
> variant, any, etc.).  Now it is 3 years between standard releases, and in 
> some ways making a proposal directly to the committee is easier if you 
> want 
> to get your library out there: shorter commitment, only need one 
> implementation, no need to support that implementation for years under 
> multiple compilers, etc. 
>

Which is unfortunate. C++ standard committee should focus on standardizing
existing practice. The boost process helps create a larger feedback and
implementation experience, and would help avoid major gaffes like _v 
variable
templates. Not everyone can give feedback at standards meetings, but it is
fairly easy to give feedback during a formal review of a library for boost.