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:
> > 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
> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk