Re: [Boost-users] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-23 15:33:16

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:17 AM Krzysztof Jusiak <krzysztof_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> * It lowers the entry-level to the language (no need for third-party libraries)

It should be obvious to everyone that external libraries cannot, and
should not be an impediment to adoption. Similarly, adding every
possible library to the standard is obviously not sustainable. Yes
there's a problem with packaging, but the solution is not to propose
everything for the standard. It is to solve the packaging problem
(perhaps that could be the focus of your new efforts?)

"Because being in the standard makes it easier to include" is not a
sufficient justification for being in the standard.

> * It improves the education aspect (one standard way of doing it)

One of the strengths of C++ is that it does not impose any particular
models of computation or paradigms on the user. This is important for
many reasons, performance being one but also to allow problems to be
solved in different ways, with each solution ideally suited to meet
the needs of a particular use-case.

"Because it becomes easier to teach" is not a sufficient justification
for being in the standard.

> * It makes the feature a first class citizen (shows that the community cares about this aspect of the language)

"Showing that the community cares" is not a sufficient justification
for being in the standard.

The C++ Standard is effectively a legal document which mandates a set
of requirements that must be fulfilled for a vendor to claim that
their product is "C++." Everything added to the standard increases the
burden for all implementers. It is very easy for a random Internet
person to propose a new library for the C++ standard, because they do
not bear the cost of implementation on all platforms and toolchains.
They don't even bear the cost of the initial proposed wording (I see
no wording from you, and a dearth of documentation in general). And
they don't bear the cost of refining the wording to resolve conflicts
before getting into the draft.

There must be an overwhelming preponderance of supporting evidence
that anything added to the standard is worth far more than the cost. I
don't see that in your library.

Thanks