Re: Boost vs Std library features (was: Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th)

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 05:37:01

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:24 PM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Jeff Garland via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I assume you mean when LEWG basically didn't exist and it was *just LWG*
>>
>
> This structure (with "just LWG") was vastly superior to the current model
> (LEWG + LWG) in terms of delivering the best value for C++ users. Because
> when it was just LWG, the group was composed also of great library
> designers in addition to wordsmiths. By creating the new group LEWG, the
> great library designers are stuck in LWG where they cannot change anything
> given to them by LEWG, and meanwhile LEWG is populated by people who just
> want to "get their library into std" for various personal reasons.
>

This isn't really the case. The truth is that the goals were much more
limited -- due to the lack of experience in the external world. And the
implementers were also more limited. clang, for example, simply didn't
exist. And compilers mostly couldn't deal with boost. In the modern era, if
you believe that 'the regular LWG experts' don't input into LEWG -- well
that would be mistaken. In fact, most of the LWG core forces LEWG to clean
up the design before it arrives on our doorstep.  Well actually, by policy
they've done tat. And, frankly, if we don't like it because it hase design
issues -- we send it back. I'm not arguing that the way we work is ideal --
far from it. We have to consider the human aspects of how many brains we
have, how much time we have, etc.  Boost is irreplaceable in the aspect
that so many brains - aka users -- see the libraries before we standardize.
  We need to find ways to make that aspect of boost more relevant again.

>
> Furthermore having "just LWG" created a natural bottleneck: not every
> library could go in, so decisions weighing the benefits and comparing what
> brings the best value for the limited committee resources were made more
> conscientiously.
>

It wasn't a bottleneck for a long time including c++11 -- and it isn't
again now as LWG has caught up with LEWG largely. It was just different in
that the total size of the group evaluating proposals was less than 20
people -- not the case now.  In the large, I consider more brains a
better.  But you have to ask - how many have done the deep dive we
typically see in boost reviews? Have you even read the paper before giving
an LEWG review comment? I fear the bigger issue here is that tiktok
attention span defines most people these days. Having a proving ground of
real user experience allays those concerns because it's people that are
invested in the details of how it works.

Jeff