Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Neil Groves (neilgroves_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-31 12:42:22
> It seems like Outcome wants to stay away from Boost. By that I mean that
> great care has been taken to decouple it from Boost, and I sense that this
> desire comes from the target audience: the so-called "low latency" crowd
> wouldn't touch Boost with a 9 foot pole. While it is generally a bad idea
> to speculate about such things, it seems to me the motivation for
> submitting Outcome for a Boost review is not to benefit the Boost
> community; for us the coupling with Boost is not a problem.
While this my response is slightly tangential to the review, I am concerned
that your assertion about the "low latency" crowd might provide the wrong
impression about the suitability of Boost in these environments.
I am very much part of the "low latency" crowd and have been for a number
of years in a few environments. I frequently care about single digit
nanoseconds. Boost libraries have been individually and intelligently
considered for use in all of these environments. While not all decisions
make sense when latency requirements are an upper-most concern, your
assertion does not fit with my experience. Boost libraries are frequently
used and are frequently of enormous utility.
> Neil Groves
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk