Re: [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-24 14:34:35

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:38 PM Emil Dotchevski via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:21 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>

Disagree completely.

> > 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.
>
>
It's a mix of different kinds of responsibilities and experiences. Many
committee members are implementers of compilers, tools, and standard
libraries -- as is necessarily the case.  Of course many of the
implementers are also users at some level -- just typically not the
'average application developer'.  Many, many participants in this list
regularly participate in WG21 -- it's not simple to describe the
participants and their motivations.  At my day job I write enterprise
applications in c++ and have for decades. My participation in WG21 is
completely self funded and on my own time -- as are many other committee
members.  Do I think more companies that are simply 'users of c++' should
sponsor committee participation -- yes I do, but I'm not holding my breath.

> The committee seems to be concerned more with internal and external
> politics than with serving the community. If that wasn't true there would
> be ZERO library additions that haven't been battle hardened by being
> deployed and established themselves as the defacto standard already.
>

Unlike the boost review where there's 'a decider', the committee uses
consensus.  It's a much higher bar, as frankly, it should be.  If even 1/3
of the committee doesn't agree on something it's unlikely to move forward.
As for battle hardened, sometimes it's not quite so simple as sometimes
language changes are needed or vendor support is needed.  Every proposal
gets vetted for usage experience and it's clear that without experience
it's unlikely to go forward.  Is the process perfect -- no.  Will it make
everyone, even the members happy -- no.  Can it be improved -- surely --
but like many things in life it's not as simple as we'd like.

> The only thing they should be doing is rubber-stamping libraries that are
> already the standard for doing something.

And if we 'just did that', things like generic programming wouldn't exist
in c++.  If the 'Roque Wave' container design was adopted in 1998 the world
would be very different now.

> Instead, it's like a giant tube
> for force feeding us what we don't want (or else we would have adopted it
> already). For our own good of course.
>

 My honest suggestion is if your country has a national body -- get to know
them and express your opinions about proposals to them so they can be
reflected.  And if you want one of those 'battle hardened' libraries
adopted, that's fine -- you don't have to be a member of the committee to
propose it.  It will help your odds to get someone experienced with process
to help -- because there isn't a rubber stamp -- stuff is vetted.

Jeff