Re: [boost] [parameter] Go C++11 and above only, or keep C++03 support?

Subject: Re: [boost] [parameter] Go C++11 and above only, or keep C++03 support?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-03 14:17:36

On 11/3/18 4:21 PM, degski wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 14:41, Andrey Semashev via Boost 
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/3/18 2:47 PM, Cromwell Enage via Boost wrote:
>      > Hello, Andrey.
>      >
>      > It's possible to retain the old code for C++03 compilers.  Which
>     ones do
>      > your library users have?
> 
>     I don't have this data. Boost.Log is documented to support gcc since
>     4.5
>     and MSVC since 8.0 SP1. It might be ok to raise the minimum requirement
>     a bit, if it makes it easier to support in Boost.Parameter and other
>     lower level libraries, but switching sraight to C++11 might be big deal
>     for users.
> 
> 
> The following question has been asked many times by many posters and 
> there never is an answer: "Those users who want to stick to the old ways 
> of doing things and like to use unsafe compilers [Meltdown, Spectre come 
> to mind], why can't they just use old versions of Boost?"

As it was answered, also many times: because we don't do support 
releases. Basically, if a bug is discovered, our recommendation is 
always "use a more recent Boost release". Of course, users can apply 
patches to their versions of Boost but this is a significant maintenance 
burden and may not be acceptable to everyone.

Having new features and libraries might also be desirable. That the 
user's code base is C++03 doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't evolve.

> There was, as far as I read it, considerable support to at least move to 
> C++11, which is already 2 standards behind the current standard [and is 
> by now fully supported on the main platforms]. Whatever is documented is 
> not relevant, if the docs are out of date, they have to be updated. If 
> every time this kind of question pops up, the answer is, "let's keep 
> backward compatibility", then when are we gonna move to a newer 
> standard? Or to put it differently, a direct question to you Andrey, at 
> which point in time [which new std, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32???] do you think 
> it will be opportune to move to C++11 and break with C++98 [because 
> doing nothing will always be easier]?

If by "move" you mean actively stripping Boost from C++03 support then 
probably never. But as far as I'm concerned, Boost has moved to C++11 
and later as soon as the first C++11 was accepted. At that point in 
time, the rest of Boost, still compatible with C++03, did not disappear 
and stayed relevant. C++03-compatible libraries are still a part of 
Boost and very much relevant, despite how many C++ versions have come out.

Specifically for Boost.Log, it already does use some of the C++11 
features, when available. And I even think it started doing so before 
C++11 was finalized. But I still consider C++03 compatibility a plus 
rather than a minus.

On a personal note, I find this "C++11 holy cow" hype quite a pointless 
waste of breath (or... network bandwidth, I guess). There is no point in 
dropping libraries on the ground of C++03 compatibility, so that's never 
going to happen. Boost never rejected libraries that targeted newer C++ 
versions, that's not changing either. Declaring that we're not testing 
C++03 compilers anymore might make sense, but we actually do. So I don't 
quite understand what were the recent discussions about "dropping C++03" 
about. Just stop debating and start writing some great code, guys! Our 
users will be only happy. :)

>     I'm not adamantly against it, not to the point I would
>     rewrite Boost.Log just to stay C++03 compatible. But it would seem that
>     the C++11 requirement is not that necessary in Boost.Parameter either -
>     you can just keep the existing code in C++03 mode it it'll work as
>     before.
> 
> I guess, it's always possible to write more code [that's what you ask 
> all maintainers to do] and work around the C++11 specificities?

It's a tradeoff, of course. In some cases, C++11 or whatever might be 
crucial for the library design or functionality. The particular case 
with Boost.Parameter doesn't seem to me like one, so yes, I'd *prefer* 
to keep the compatibility with C++03. If there appears a case that would 
make keeping the support for C++03 unreasonable (in Boost.Parameter or 
elswhere), I will accept it and Boost.Log, by induction, will become 
C++11-only.