Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-03 00:17:56

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 02/07/2017 18:25, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> Ok, Vinnie. Enough of the aggression.
> >> ...
> >> If you don't want my feedback because of some grudge against me, say so
> >
> > There's no grudge but this is what I'm hearing:
> >
> >    "Beast should not perform socket I/O."
> >
> > I don't know if its your style of speaking, or word choice but this
> > feedback is patently absurd on the face of it.
>
> I don't see the absurdity at all.
>
> Let me give you some background.
>
> I've implemented basic HTTP perhaps six times now in my career to date.
> Four times in C/C++, twice in Python. I don't have the depth of
> knowledge of full fat HTTP like say Bjorn does, seeing as he contributed
> extensively to curl, but I've implemented this stuff lots of times now.
>

I think Vinnie is right that it is "your style". "I've done HTTP six times
in my career" is not an argument, the subtext is "you're inexperienced and,
this library is a nice try, but if you want to play with the big boys you
have to do it differently."

Further, I know many smart people who have done something six times in
their career, and never got close to a good design.

I'm not an expert so I can't comment on the Beast (other than to say that
IMO it is a poor choice of name), but it would be helpful (including to
people like me) to add structure to your criticisms; e.g. this is what the
library does now, but this is a bad idea for this and that reason, and it
would be better to do it this way, rather than "dude, this is so 10 years
out of date!" :)