From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-23 20:46:36
On 5/23/2020 5:56 AM, 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.
I wrote cxx_dual anticipating the problem that end-users might be
disappointed that Boost libraries use other Boost libraries rather than
C++11 on up equivalent libraries. So I am not at all surprised by some
of the comments about Boost.
I have always been for each library reporting what level of C++ that
library supports, even in detail if the library optionally supports some
features of later C++ standards.
I do believe people overreact to dependencies, however. All good
software design involves reusing established code when necessary.
Reinventing code simply for the sake of less dependencies has always
seemed to me a fool's game, unless there is a very good practical reason
for not using established code.
I am totally against the idea that some code which works perfectly in
C++03, as well as all other C++ standard levels, needs to be
unnecessarily updated to some later C++ standard level in order to be
acceptable to anyone.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk