Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 11:14:31

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of degski via Boost
> Sent: 23 October 2018 09:37
> To: boost
> Cc: degski; Robert Ramey
> Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
> 
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 10:07, Miguel Ojeda via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:27 PM Robert Ramey via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/22/18 10:13 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 believe that one of the original goals is to "standardize existing
> > > practice" and perhaps they shouldn't do that.  One thing that they do
> > > which no one else can do is specify language syntax and semantics.
> > > Expanding too far beyond this essential function can compromise the
> > > successful accomplishment of that very function.
> >
> > The problem is defining that "too far beyond this essential function".
> > Is it unique_ptr? Ranges? 2D graphics?
> >
> 
> Well, in respect of the 2D Graphics proposal(s), I don't get it. There is a
> perfectly good (C++, cross platform, mature) 2D Framework [SFML] available,
> which seems to have been discarded from the block. No, instead we're gonna
> get [probably] some poofed up C thingy, which does not even allow you to
> write that little 2D Game [because we need a mouse, a window, touch, sound
> (formats), image formats, etc etc]. 

+1,

but I failed to persuade the British Standards C++ group that this was precisely the sort of thing that WG21 should NOT be doing (but Boost might but hasn't).

I put the highest priority for WG21 on Herb Sutters et al proposal to formally specify the language (effectively in C++ (C++++?) itself) rather than continue to fumble with language standardese that you can't automatically reason about. 

Boost still has a valuable role as a discoverer of language enhancements that are needed.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]