From: Krzysztof Jusiak (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-23 16:14:42
My personal take is that C++ strength comes from standardizing
zero-overhead abstractions and not the underlying implementation which
allows for the best possible implementation depending on a variety of
I also believe that having basic testing primitives in the standard would
benefit C++ (as stated before) but I understand that opinions will vary
here and I'm not going to argue that (there are pros and cons both).
I'm also definitely not proposing [Boost].UT for standardization here; just
checking whether there is an interest in the library, that's it.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:17 AM Krzysztof Jusiak <krzysztof_at_[hidden]>
> > * It lowers the entry-level to the language (no need for third-party
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk