Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Francesco Guerrieri (f.guerrieri_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-27 17:10:13

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:27 PM Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> пт, 27 нояб. 2020 г. в 14:09, Francesco Guerrieri via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> >
> > It's almost impossible to not top post from the phone, sorry!
> >
> > I am just a simple user, even if long dated. For what is worth I don't
> > agree with the goal of 0 dependencies between boost libraries: this for
> me
> > goes against the spirit of the language. I agree that dependencies can
> grow
> > out of control and the unnecessary proliferation should be avoided (a lot
> > of work has been done on that)...
>
> OK, how about a goal "Use the C++17 standard version whenever
> possible"? With that goal we would reach the required result, but the
> goal wording is less obscure.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Antony Polukhin
>

Hi Antony,

this is a much clearer goal and I can see why a new library - or a subset
of the libraries - could aim for that. On the other hand Boost has a very
strong tradition and has proven its importance over and over, in providing
useful - or indispensable - tools even when the environment is old/obscure.
I don't think that it would be a good idea to suddenly "drop" this
support.. and why should developers, already a scarce resource, "waste
time" in removing support from something that is working and is potentially
useful for many users? On the other hand there could very well be cases of
libraries who are severely constrained if they are forced to support older
standards. In that case it would be a very reasonable call to "move" to
C++17.

But I wonder, is this really new? Hasn't every developer until now declared
a specific goal (I want to support only C++11 onward, even C++03... only
gcc X.Y for X and Y greater than ...)?

So are you calling to action for a more stringent requirement on C++17,
with a conversion of existing libraries and dropping (part of) the support
for older standards? or are you calling for a more enthusiastic adoption of
the new standard?

Sorry if I am missing something and thanks for your reply.

Best,
Francesco