Subject: Re: [boost] Improving Boost Docs
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 15:19:44
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Edward Diener via Boost
> ...others think having the same look-and-feel of all
> Boost docs is an advantage.
I'm one of those people. Some of the folks working on Boost I have
interacted with seem to think that the success of a library or project
will/should depend solely on its technical merits. I don't share that
view, I think that the presentation matters. In other words the way
that the "product" (Boost, or a particular library in this case) is
"marketed" to users.
Engineers might find it distasteful or not "pure" that such factors
play a role in the success of a library but that is the reality.
For this reason I think that the uniformity of "look and feel" of the
Boost documentation is one of its strengths. It is a signal of
attention to quality. I know the toolchain can be difficult. I feel
that the results are worth it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk