Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 15:47:30

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jeff Garland via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'd dare to suggest we go one step further while we're here. We should join
> the 3 year cycle and drop support for c++11 in 2026, c++14 in 2029, etc.

Hmm, no I don't think that's a good idea. Dropping C++11 provides very
little benefit compared to dropping C++03. And breaking existing Boost
programs every three years doesn't sound particularly exciting.

> ...it matches what the standard is doing so it's already part of the bigger culture of evolution.

I don't agree that the Committee's three-year release cycle is
beneficial. In fact I think it is actively harmful as things get
rushed and it attracts thrill-seekers pursuing instant gratification.
C++20 for example in its rush to "deliver spaceship" broke some
existing programs.

In fact I would even say that WG21 is not effectively delivering on
the needs of the greater C++ community. Not for lack of effort, but
because the bureaucratic structure invites politics and creates
perverse incentives. C++11 was a huge success thanks to Boost, and
represents an outlier in terms of the quality of the Committee's
output. What we are seeing today is a reduction of output, and a
reversion to the mean.

This is not a problem specific to WG21, it is a problem for any large
organization. As Samo Burja explains in this blog post, functional
institutions are the exception not the norm:

<https://samoburja.com/functional-institutions-are-the-exception/>

Boost should not follow. Instead, we should lead.

Thanks