Re: Boost vs Std library features

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 12:05:39

On 29/11/2023 05:37, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:

> 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.

Last few meetings at LEWG I find myself repeatedly thinking "this person 
hasn't read the paper". And not just for my own papers, for a majority 
of papers. R0's and R1's get read. R14's do not in my experience.

Something I noticed about Titus when he was chair was he always seemed 
to have read the revision of the paper being discussed that day in 
detail, and had a good on-the-day knowledge of where things were and how 
forward progress could be maximised.

I know some felt as a result papers got pushed through too quickly by 
Titus, and a more reflective slower process would have produced higher 
quality results with fewer missing parts and footguns. However if a 
majority of the room does not read the latest revision of a paper, it's 
hard to produce higher quality results no matter how slow a process you 
use. There is an argument therefore to keep revisions well below ten, 
and either push stuff through faster or reject entirely much earlier.

Niall