From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-10 15:03:07
On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:48 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> It's inexplicable to me why vendors make their own (often inferior) versions of the boost library versions. Have they nothing better to do with their money? If they want, the could send some my way.
In the case of <chrono>, std::chrono came first, at least in implementation in libc++.
In other cases, corporate policy may not accept the boost copyright.
And in other cases, a std::lib maintainer may feel the need to become expert in the subject matter since he/she will be at the tip of the spear in supporting it.
Though multiple implementations has its down side, it also has its upsides, such as better chances at minor improvements, both in API and performance. Independent implementations are also an excellent technique for improving the specification.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk