From: Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-24 08:20:30
El 23/05/2020 a las 22:46, Edward Diener via Boost escribiÃ³:
> 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 [...]
> 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.
In this particular case, there are two establshed codes: Boost and std.
Seems like some end
users strongly favor the latter as it's not perceived as a real
dependency in the sense that
additional libs need be downloaded etc.
> 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.
This looks somewhat at odds with one of the stated goals of your
"On a more practical basis the CXXD library is for:
1. Programmers writing code not using C++11 syntax who still want to
C++11 libraries if the code is compiled in C++11 mode.
JoaquÃn M Lopez MuÃ±oz
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk