Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 16:17:06

> actively harmful

Well it isn't for those users stuck on c++11.  There are users for which
the new facilities are quite beneficial.

> rush to deliver spaceship broke some code

So what? Progress can't be made without *some* mistakes -- as you should
know, there are a lot of complicated cases.  The fixes for that breakage
weren't difficult.

> 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:

All this applies to Boost just as well as WG21.

> Boost should not follow. Instead, we should lead.

As a member of Boost since the early 2000's I couldn't agree more.  I don't
think we are doing that currently, sorry.  And continuing support for
ancient revisions of the standard isn't a way to lead to the future.

Vinnie -- I don't want to get into a big debate about this, it's not worth
our time.  But, yeah -- I disagree.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:47 AM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>