Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Mike Dev (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 10:01:23

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 8:27 PM
> [...]
> I'm arguing that the C++ standardization process is not useful for most
> C++ libraries.

True, but I don't see the problem. Most libraries never aspire to get
standardized anyway.

> The committee can't handle it. This is pretty much a
> demonstrable fact as far as I'm concerned. (I realize that people will
> disagree with this premise). So this leaves a vacuum which
> organizations such a Boost can/should fill.

Why does boost have to define its role in terms of its relation to the
standardization process? Can't it just be a collection of well designed
and well maintained open source libraries? Actually I'd like to see much
more higher level libraries such as Beast in boost than the next compiler
torture test (of course that would require someone writing, submitting and
maintaining such libraries).

Not sure if we have a violent agreement here without recognizing it.

> > .
> > Interesting point to think about: If you look at how standardization of
> > communication protocols work (e.g. USB, Wifi PCI), they don't standardize
> > established practice at all.
> True, but their not standardizing any practice. They don't approve code
> or APIS etc. The leave that to someone else. They stick to the
> legitimate goals of standardization.

I disagree.
The c++ committee doesn't approve code either and the interface properties
(APIs and ABIs in programming language speak) is exactly what the USB or
WiFi standards define, just like the c++ standard defines interfaces.

Anyway, let's keep this about boost and not the scope of the standardization


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at