Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-22 09:08:28
> On 22 May 2016, at 14:57, Norbert Wenzel <norbert.wenzel.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 05/22/2016 09:53 AM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>> On 19.05.2016 11:17, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>> The C++ 14 only libraries contributed to date are clearly written
>>> first for C++ not Boost. They are the future we should be proactively
>>> encouraging into a new clean ground up redesigned fork of Boost, a
>>> Boost 2.0, instead of corralling them into legacy and outdated
>>> packaging, build, design, documentation and idioms out of some
>>> misguided desire for serving the legacy Boost usership before that of
>>> the wider C++ community.
>> What percentage of "the entire C++ community" do you think has access to
>> a C++ 14 compiler anyway?
>> [...] I'd love to switch to C++ 14, but right now it's just
>> technically viable for me.
> I have to agree with that. The company I work for builds devices that
> run C++ code and Desktop applications to control these devices. While
> I'm relatively free to use whatever compiler I want on the desktop side
> (as long as I provide an installable package to the customer, that runs
> on Windows Vista+) I cannot control what is available on the device. So
> I have to adapt to whatever compiler version the firmware team decided
> to provide. The most recent compiler they provide on one of our devices
> is GCC 4.8. I will have to support this compiler (even when writing new
> code that will be running on both, desktop machines and on the devices)
> for years to come.
> As a side note, we have to support code written in Visual C++ 6.0, but
> these versions do not require any new Boost version, so this is not an
> issue. But of course we have VMs with such ancient compilers around and
> in use.
> But any new library that requires C++14 is of no use to our company, as
> long as we cannot make sure the code will be running in our desktop
> applications only (which is the majority of newly written software in
> our company). And this will not change quickly. A new version of Boost
> that required C++14 for all their libraries would not be used, even
> though it might be faster, better tested and have a ton of other
> advantages. It would be easier to write/port some new code ourselves
> than to force a change of infrastructure to the entire company.
If the devices are network attached then this sounds like a great usecase for testing the beast http boost library?
You could embed a little http server in the device that provided a REST API, ..control it with a browser on the desktop.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk