Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-09 01:21:32

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 5:31 PM Emil Dotchevski via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I don't see anything wrong with an author seeking acceptance in Boost as a
> way to acquire users.
>

Then let me educate you. Users correctly or incorrectly presume that all
libraries in the Boost collection will have the same consistently high
level of quality in terms of library API, documentation, performance, and
fitness to task. As this is almost impossible to sustain over time,
eventually an experienced Boost user recognizes that some libraries are
better than others. And they may discover that some libraries are a trap,
unable to deliver on their promises, or perhaps they are not as well
maintained anymore. In other words quality varies significantly from
library to library. During the "golden age of Boost" which occurred at the
inception of Boost and stretched until 2011, this was less of a problem as
the people proposing libraries were experts in the field who also
participated in the standards process. But now there is less participation
in Boost and more participation in the standardization process. Mailing
list volume is down and fewer reviewers appear for new libraries. Boost
also lost its Great Founders and momentum slowed.

I was told a long time ago that the formal review process is as much about
evaluating the author as it is about evaluating the library. Because once a
library goes into the collection it needs to be maintained, and only the
original author has the best understanding of the library and how it might
evolve over time. For example an author of inconsistent temperament who
might abandon their library after it passes a review would be harmful to
the integrity of the collection. I'm not saying this is applicable in this
case but we have a similar problem.

I challenge the author with this exhortation: get a user or two, show that
this thing is compelling enough to be used outside of the Boost community
in an actual project, and then submit it. What is so hard about that?
What's the rush to put this into the collection? If it's good it will be
just as good two or three releases from now. And no one will be impeded
from using it even before it becomes part of a release.

Klemens: why do you have zero users? The question is of course rhetorical
because we already have the answers. No effort was made to acquire them, no
thoughtfulness was put into actual user needs, no users were consulted
during the development of the library. How many times was Peter Dimov
consulted during the library's development? Did Christopher Kohloff offer
his input?

In the first review cycle for the library it was said that the library is
single threaded and it made sense to optimize:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2023/08/254938.php

I got no answer to this question so I asked it again:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2023/08/254958.php

Still no answers to this question from August, the author provided no
information about how the library is optimized, what kind of improvement
was seen, the methodology for optimization, any kind of benchmarks, and so
on. There is just a handwavey claim of performance. Is this how low Boost
has fallen now? What happened to the engineering rigor and discipline that
was the hallmark of Boost's heyday? Must we resign ourselves to the
indignity of statements like "I don't see anything wrong with an author
seeking acceptance in Boost as a way to acquire users?"

Sad.

Thanks