Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 2.0 ideas (was Re: Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-20 12:08:32

On 20 May 2016 at 8:12, Robert Ramey wrote:

> Thanks for a good summary.
> I <sniped> the whole thing in the interest of brevity. I don't intend
> to address the specifics of the proposal here. It would be too long and
> way too off topic. But I do have a couple of observations.
> a) It's breathtaking in it's scope. You can't be accused of being
> timid. Feel free to take that as a compliment.

LOL they're just ideas Robert. Some more fully baked than others. A
committee of the willing would ponder each proposed idea, maybe do a
bit of prototyping, and see what's unaminously agreed by everyone

If it's not unaminous, I don't think it should enter the 2.0 plan.

You might note the strong resemblence to ISO WG21 procedures

> b) There is no way Boost could get to this place starting from where we
> are now by means of evolution. The gap is just too broad. You'll have
> to think in terms of intelligent design rather than evolution. This has
> been done before - after all boost itself was founded by a small group
> of people who decided to strike out on a whole new path.

It's a breaking change yes. As is necessary in any real reboot.

> c) It would make just about every line of code in boost obsolete.

If a library maintainer wishes to port their code to something like
my shim layer, their library can be compatible with both Boost 1.x
and 2.x. AFIO v1 was implementing that last year, and very few of the
peer reviewers even noticed (except to complain about "needless build
configuration complexity").

AFIO v2, Outcome and my other Boost-ish libraries are exclusively
built on that Boost-lite emulation layer, and it's sufficiently good
I haven't actually used real Boost since last October.

> d) This would require resources on a scale way beyond what we've seen in
> boost. Specifically, I'm thinking of library developers.

Once the 2.0 plan has been finalised by the committee - which I'd
expect to take a minimum of a year - then begins implementation. I
would assume it would happen piecemeal, as individual library
maintainers get round to adapting their library to fit the new

Parts of the plan would never be implemented because no maintainer
bothered. That's absolutely fine - it means they weren't really
needed after all.

> Given all this, I think you're efforts in this endeavor will be wasted
> in boost and you'd likely get more reward starting something from
> scratch.

I disagree.

What I propose is very like how Boost was in the early days back when
earnest and passion drove evolution instead of the cynical heckling
and sniping jadedness you get here now. A reboot in every sense of
the word.

Moreover, I'm still hoping that at some point a critical mass forms
to make this happen. Until then, I wait and get on with my own


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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