Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-27 22:46:01

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:02 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> (A new subject, since the thread has evolved past the Text review result).
>
> Agree, thanks.

> I spend part of my time in the C++ standards committee. I spend part
> of my time in Boost.
>

Many of us do.

> If there is benefit of Boost to any other entity, be it the LEWG of
> the committee, or some organization, that's great. i.e. When Boost is
> adopted by some organization, or when Boost components go into the
> standard, that's just a bonus.
>

It used to not just be a bonus -- it's the prime reason Boost exists.  If
it no longer has that mission we should make that clearer.

> But Boost itself shouldn't compromise on quality - in its review
> process or what it ships in a Boost distribution,   to serve any of
> those other interests.
>

That is a decision for the Boost community to make, while there is still a
community.  If all C++ library development goes elsewhere then there won't
be much left.

> Putting a bunch of experimental libraries into a Boost release just
> because people have proposed them for standardization is not something
> we should do.
>

I disagree.  Consider how painful it is for a c++ programmer that wants to
contribute to the review proposed libraries for the C++ standard.  And by
that I mean, go and use the implementation.  In my case I was doing this
for c++20 -- it was super painful.  Aside from the time it took to go pull
from different places, compiler support and library quality/robustness was
all over the map.

In the past, when 90% of the things went thru Boost this meant downloading
Boost and going to town.   When TR1 came there was a special Boost package
for it.  The regression system would let you know where it worked and where
it didn't.

If someone wants to, they can should just start their own project full
> of libraries that have not undergone any kind of formal review, and
> convince OS distributions to start including that as part of their
> packages based on its own merits.
>

As you know well, the proposals for the standard are undergoing a formal
review, it's just not a Boost review.  And just so my intention is clear --
my goal is to increase the review of the proposals that make it into the
standard.  In my opinion the bar too the standard needs to be raised a
couple more levels.

After sleeping on it I like the idea more than ever -- so maybe I'll work
on it.  And if Boost doesn't want to distribute it then it's more of the
same mind share drain away from Boost.  I think it would be fine to ship
the proposed elements outside the main distro until it went thru a normal
review.  Ideally we'd get more authors to submit to a boost review and come
under the tent.  Maybe we could have some of the 'boostification' work done
by Summer of Code students.  Maybe this will led to more libraries like
asio that can ship standalone and in Boost as well.

In case there was any misunderstanding on this point: Zach's goals of
> standardization are his own, and in Boost we don't have to be
> concerned with them. Because we're not changing the review process
> because of them, and he's not asking us to.
>

Understood, but we should care about his effort to standardize.  Unicode is
hard, it's a mess in C++, and average programmers could use a Boost (sorry,
so sorry, not sorry :).  Ideally what Zach proposes will ship under the
Boost banner first.  Why?   So more than the maybe 20 people on the
committee will look at it before the ink is dried and it ships with
compilers.

Jeff