Subject: Re: [boost] [stacktrace] review (changing vote to NO)
From: Artyom Beilis (artyom.beilis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-26 03:34:17
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Vladimir Batov
> On 2016-12-26 10:41, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Acknowledging the need for a particular functionality is not the same
>> as accepting a particular implementation.
> Put bluntly users do not care about implementation. They care about
> functionality provided.
They don't until they hit the issue.
I think there is a difference between generic utility library like "unordered"
and domain specific library.
When we talk about domain specific library - users expect that its
implementation would meet the highest standards - so they may think of API.
Especially when it goes to doing something cross platform.
Doing the review I felt that the Windows backend is well written for MSVC
but the rest was lacking and was implemented in as stop-gap solution
to provide the functionality for Linux. Especially that it wasn't mentioned
in any place in docs how it is actually done.
(@Antony Polukhin I'm sure you worked hard on it and I apologize if it
offends you somehow)
But as domain specific library I think there is some way to go. And that
is why the original vote was conditional yes. The problem is that
the backend needs rework, now with additional issues in frontend
I decided to change the vote - because in its current shape.
But I do want it to be back for the review after updates and I clearly
> As for the feedback, then I do not see voting something useful "no" to be
> much of a feedback.
Indeed - that is why this library received lots of feedback - so the author
can do fixes in design and come back.
> "difficult", "painful", "backward compatibility"... Come on. I am sure
> you've been in the industry for a while, have "survived" many
> upgrades/updates, etc. We all know it's not an issue. We update, adjust,
> move on.
I must say the poor - or more correctly say non-existant backward compatibility
of the boost libraries limits its usefulness significantly in real
I've seen companies that:
1. Stuck with old versions of boost because they can't upgrade without
breaking the entire code base
2. Limit themselves to very small parts of boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk