Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 15:01:13
On 10/23/18 3:01 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 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.
I think there are 70 proposals to be considered in San Diego.
>> 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?
I think that was part of original motivation for the founding of Boost.
And I do see Boost as providing those things that C++ needs but
shouldn't be part of the standard. So I do see role of Boost as being
defined in relation to the standard.
> 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.
I think we mostly agree. But since we're both part of Boost, we can't
openly acknowledge this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk