Re: Revitalization

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-12-06 00:21:25

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Sam Darwin via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Here's a chart of Boost library Github activity from 2013 through 2022
> (created by querying api.github.com). Number of pull requests. Number of
> issues. Development activity has been mostly constant.
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ds-juqrToQR6fl5Ld7TkUYYOt7MO0hQwtaWpDorb8vs/edit#gid=0

Thank you Sam. I believe this confirms the theory that user support
and design discussions have branched away from the mailing list and
into GitHub issues and discussions. And the public activity on the
Cpplang Slack (https://cpplang.slack.com/) sponsored by the C++
Alliance has been robust in terms of day to day technical discussion
regarding Boost, networking, and the C++ standard.

My "revitalization" theory of Boost is as follows:

* User support has been migrating from the mailing list to GitHub issues
* Technical discussion has been migrating to Slack and to some extent
Discord; it is more lively and interactive.
* Boost is not as popular now because the perception of "monolithism"
and duplication of std features (i.e. a victim of our own success)

There was a survey three years ago with excellent feedback which
provides many answers to "why not Boost?"

<https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/gfowpq/why_you_dont_use_boost/>

Boost does need a refreshing of talent, however, as we face these problems:

* Authors of open source libraries are less inclined to target a Boost
review and more inclined to want to create a library that does not
depend on Boost (for many of the reasons above, "Why you don't use
Boost?")

* Authors of library-only proposals for the standard have been
incentivized by the political atmosphere of the WG21 bureaucracy to go
"direct to standard." That is, to write papers with little to no
supporting code, and no attempt to publish an actual library with the
goal of attracting projects willing to use the library in real
projects.

* The rise in objections to using Boost is correlated with a decrease
in qualified individuals willing to review proposed Boost libraries
and act as review managers.

To address these issues requires a multimodal approach, including but
not limited to:

1. A modern website. The C++ Alliance is working on a new site for
Boost which should help consolidate the social media features
together, streamline the review process, and ease the release process,
as well as provide easy to access information about the Boost
libraries in a visual style that is appealing and promotes interest.
We hope to provide a beta in Q1 of 2023.

2. A streamlining of Boost. We need ideas on how to address the issues
raised by users. Just thinking out loud this could include breaking
Boost up into several smaller libraries, e.g. "core" boost, "math"
boost, "network" boost, "C++03 boost". Work on documentation that most
people agree is poor or is a pain point for users. There has been a
lot of discussion about this so I won't repeat it here.

3. Regularly posting social media content such as blog posts, video
tutorials, example programs, or case studies of Boost in the workplace
where the benefits of using Boost are clearly enumerated. To this end
we have begun to tweet more regularly from the Boost Twitter account,
which has gained 15% more followers in the last three months (see
https://twitter.com/Boost_Libraries). Retweeting and following will of
course help.

Thanks