Re: Boost vs Std library features

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 18:15:19

Vinnie Falco wrote:
> 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.

I don't think this theory has any explanatory power. Everything above
applies equally well to the C++98 committee or the C++11 committee, yet
the result was entirely different.