Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 14:26:26
On 10/22/18 1:53 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>> -----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.
My point is that complex libraries such as ranges, networking, etc.
don't belong in the standard at all. So in my world, the committee
would spend zero time on these things - thus making available time on
those things that only a standards committee can do.
> 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.
Hmmm - the question posed really is whether Boost adds any value at all.
That is, if a boost library is equivalent to any other library on
github, then what's the point of Boost. This is actually the
fundamental question that Boost has to face today.
> Also, considering that the "actual" ranges library depends on
I'm not sure that it necessarily depends on concepts. But even if it
does, Eric implemented his own library based version of concepts. Paul
Fulks was inspired by that to propose such a library for boost which
failed to pass review.
>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.
I believe that Eric's and Pauls were both portable.
>> 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.
Right. The only software actually designed and produced by Boost are
the Boost building and testing tools. BTW - how's that working out?
> 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.
That's it - the need is for high quality software components produced in
a timely manner. I don't believe the standards committee can accomplish
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk