From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-08-09 03:48:28
On 9/08/2022 04:39, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> This was one piece of feedback posted during the Boost.JSON review of
> September 2020:
It does seem a bit peculiar to bring this up again two years later.
(Also FWIW because this was a reply it ends up buried deep in the old
thread, where some people may overlook it.)
> As I believe that the review process is a vital piece of social
> technology that has made the Boost C++ Library Collection the best of
> breed, I'd like to avoid having the review of the upcoming proposed
> Boost.URL submission tainted with similar aspersions.
> I realize of course that this will invite contradictory replies ("all
> you need to do is...") but as my conclusion was achieved only after
> months of experimentation culminating in the production of a complete,
> working prototype, I would just say: show a working prototype then
> let's talk.
These two positions seem at odds -- you're inviting and encouraging
review, but then trying to set an extremely high bar ("implement at
least a skeletal competing library first") for that review to be
considered worthwhile. You can't have it both ways.
While granted, "why not do it like X?" can be annoying when you did
already consider that and found it didn't work for whatever reason (and
even more so if you hadn't considered it, it's actually better, but
you're a long way down a different path); the proper response is not to
dismiss it but to interpret this as feedback that your documentation
does not sufficiently clearly explain why you didn't do it like X.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk