Re: [boost] RFC : About forking a C++11 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC : About forking a C++11 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-07 17:46:55

Le 06/06/2016 à 11:16, Joseph Van Riper a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well
>> know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
>>
>> I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard
>> library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as
>> another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
>>
>> Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the
>> Boost/C++ community?
>>
> Yes.  At least for what we do where I work.
>
> The cyber-security field works with very old machines, either for forensics
> (people forget they have some old machine until it gets hacked and some old
> process that always "just worked" stops working), teaching (teaching old,
> outmoded techniques helps to illustrate cyber security problems without
> giving people tools for modern exploitation), or competitions.
>
> I kind of hate having to work with clunky, antediluvian C++ compilers that
> magnify the level of woe required to deal with old machinery.  Especially
> while the rest of the C++ world moves on to the spiffy-shiny features found
> in the later compilers.  Having at least a library that helps us use some
> of those nifty features can help us use our skills on more modern projects
> when we move on to another job, while easing the efforts required to do our
> work.
A library wouldn't change your compiler ;-), but it could change the way 
you program :).
>
> Anyway, if you find that this will be useful to you at your work we will
>> need your participation. Would you be interested in working on it?
>
> Hmmm... am I even knowledgeable enough?
>
> While I may find myself learning quite a lot about C++ by studying the
> boost code people write, I am also humbled by what I see there.  I fear I
> am only beginning to dip into some of the intermediate meta-programming
> techniques that seem to confer tremendous power to this language.
>
> as a Boost community project?
>> outside Boost, as an independent project?
>>
>   Hmmm...
>
> The boost 'brand' confers a certain gravitas.  If you wish to maintain this
> gravitas in the new library, I'd say keep the boost brand, but require the
> same rigor.
We have a License issue, so it couldn't be a Boost library :(

Vicente

P.S. Please, contact me privately if you are interested.