Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 23:53:24
Niall Douglas wrote:
> 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 familiar?
> 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.
I notice that among all that sentiment expression you forgot to answer my
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk