Re: [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-15 20:20:32

On 15/03/2021 19:01, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:

> I fully agree with regard to the committee. It has been nothing but a
> cause of frustration and anger for the community of developers who
> actually use C++ to get work done. I have the strong impression that
> very few on the committee ever produce anything of strategic value for
> their employers.

This is about as categorically untrue as any statement could be.

As a general rule, those who regularly attend WG21 meetings are
responsible for enterprise level software, having in large part
contributed to the design, implementation, and maintenance of those
mission critical systems. Think the libraries and services which
underpin the whole functioning and being of Facebook, Google, Apple,
Microsoft and so on, which hundreds of thousands of developers in those
orgs use daily, and which generate billions of dollars annually in
profits, either through cost reductions/efficiency savings, or by direct
generation of value.

There are large variations in opinion, yes, and reaching consensus
always leaves everybody unsatisfied by definition. There is also often
frustration that what is being standardised is very far from what
everybody would prefer, but the committee standardises what is
presented, not what it would have if there were infinite resources.

Most of the perceived shortcomings with how the sausage is minced is
mainly due to lack of funding of ecosystemic and public goods and
services such as a package manager. That WG21 literally does not have
the power to change, yet is typically blamed for, which is unfair.

Niall