Re: Potential project: Resolving boost::chrono conflicts with std::chrono

From: jrmarsha (jrmarsha_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-10 22:45:27

On 8/10/19 1:51 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> In case it wasn't obvious, this is one more bullet in my campaign to 
> see the standards committee narrow it's scope to the things that only 
> such a committee can do. That is:
>
> a) core language syntax and semantics
> b) core libraries which place a common interface on underlying machine 
> or operating system implementations
>
> Other stuff should be considered separately.  Preferably by some other 
> organization but at least by a separate committee. The current 
> structure is failing to scale and the problem is growing 
> (exponentially?). I'm sorry I continue to harp on this, but I'm not 
> getting traction.  Note that a huge portion of standard libraries have 
> their origin in other organizations - stl, boost, and others.  The 
> committee has a poor track record in delivering quality libraries in a 
> timely manner.
>
At risk of derailing this, at the institutions which I have previously 
worked don't use boost, and don't really go outside the core of the 
language.  Such a restriction would only result in a even more 
significant drop in usage and interest unless the core language can be 
considered *complete*.  While your argument has merit from a puristic 
perspective, I contest in an applied view it would be a death knell for 
the language and they retreat to C and assembly.  There are too many who 
are still unwilling to learn or adapt more, and the only way to get 
things to move forward for anybody is if the core language takes the 
load to add functionality for those who are willing to learn it.