Re: Boost vs Std library features

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 22:03:40

On 29/11/2023 18:15, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

> 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.

1. There was lots more low hanging fruit for 11.

2. 11 took a lot more time in the cooker.

3. 11 was originally much much bigger, but had a round of drastic 
pruning applied before 11 became 11. Anything contentious, not quite 
fully baked etc, got stripped out.

4. 11 borrowed very heavily from existing well established practice, and 
didn't go monkeying around with it in the name of "modernisation".

There were still some big design mistakes in 11 - I still find 
`<random>` very unfortunate and entirely avoidable at the time, unlike 
`<system_error>` or initialiser lists where the defects were not obvious 
initially. `<regex>` and `<unordered_map>` probably couldn't have been 
predicted easily in advance, at their time they seemed reasonable.

Niall