Re: Boost vs Std library features

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 17:24:31

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:14 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I'm not a committee member, just an observer from the outside, but it
> looks to me that people that aren't familiar with the proposal should
> abstain from the discussion.
>

The main issue that I see is that the structure of the committee itself is
not aligned with the needs of users. There is no feedback mechanism in
place which pushes members in the right direction. There is no qualitative
analysis regarding the benefits versus cost of approving a paper. There are
no objective measures for comparing two papers to determine which one does
the most good. After a paper is accepted and the feature deployed, there is
no retrospective quantitative analysis of the achieved benefits versus the
expected benefits. There is no process of natural selection which ensures
the most productive and talented individuals are prioritized over
individuals who contribute little.

In the "real world" a business that does not serve the needs of its
customers goes bankrupt. But when WG21 fails to serve the needs of C++
users, nothing happens. In fact most of the time they don't even know they
are failing the community, as everyone is pursuing their own self-interests.

Thanks