Subject: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Mike Dev (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 08:53:09
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:33 AM
> But now Ranges may come as part of the standard in C++20. And then
> sometime after may be available when/if compiler vendors choose to
> implement their own version. All in all, the committed would have been
> able to spend time on other stuff which only they can do.
They would still have had to spend the time on standardizing ranges-v3.
I don't see how ranges-v3 being in boost instead of a stand-alone repo
would have made any difference for standardization, unless you assume
that it would have produced a much superior design.
Also, considering that the "actual" ranges library depends on
concepts, I don't see how that work could have been done as part of a
boost library which is commonly expected to work with a wide variety of
compilers / compiler versions.
> Compared to Boost, the C++ committee is an inferior organization to
> design and produce quality software.
Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but I don't see Boost designing or producing
any software. I see some individuals producing and maintaining great
libraries (certainly in part due to feedback from other boost members)
that may or may not get accepted into boost.
The one thing I can say however is that for standardizing libraries,
a production quality, cross-platform implementation (which may or may not be
part of boost) is much more useful than a TS that doesn't get implemented by
half of the toolchains.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk