From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-23 16:16:33
On 2020-05-23 18:56, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 06:25, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 2020-05-23 12:56, Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz via Boost wrote:
>>> Prompted by general feelings about Boost perceived lack of modernization
>>> and internal "bloat",
>>> and after an explicit survey on what users dislike about Boost , I
>>> decided to try and write a more
>>> or less fleshed out proposal for an epoch-based organization of Boost
>>> libraries. I've extensively
>>> tested and refined the proposal during discussions on Reddit and the
>>> Boost Slack channel,
>>> and I feel this is now ready for presentation at the mailing list:
>>> I hope the proposal can start a productive conversation. Looking forward
>>> to your feedback.
>> From the article:
>> > if you were writing a new candidate Boost library with C++11 as its
>> baseline, would you strive to use std components rather than their Boost
>> counterparts, no matter how good the latter are? I would say you would.
>> I would not. As a user (either in-Boost or external) I would choose the
>> library that is technically better. Boost.Regex is actually a very good
>> example of such, as it is considerably faster than at least some popular
>> std::regex implementations. There are other examples where Boost
>> equivalents are technically better in one regard or another than the
>> standard counterparts.
> The Microsoft STL is now open source (I'm sure you've all heard about it),
> So in the case of Microsoft, it suffices to create a PR and upstream the
> better boost library. I believe (to know) for boost::regex this has already
> happened or is going to happen. Boost should adopt <charconv> from
What if I don't use MSVC?
Also, I'm not sure compiler vendors would be willing to accept
non-standard extensions. Certainly, not all vendors would. Part of the
reason why Boost exists is that such extensions have a place to be and
could be used regardless of your compiler.
That said, I absolutely welcome improvements in standard libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk