Re: Technical Excellence?

From: Rainer Deyke (rdeyke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-27 15:59:24

On 27.03.24 14:47, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> Boost libraries used to be cutting edge, to such an extent that they were
> adopted into the C++ Standard. And now the progress is in reverse. The
> Standard introduces a new component, and the Boost library follows
> (Boost.Charconv for example). In other cases I see libraries with few to no
> users limping into reviews, or absent discussions which question whether or
> not the bar for excellence is exceeded. When I used to participate in wg21
> I complained about the "direct to standard" pipeline, where people would
> just write papers for the sake of it with no example code or real-world
> user experience. I have to wonder if we are not cultivating a "direct to
> Boost" pipeline by having relaxed or poorly-defined acceptance criteria.
I don't see "direct to Boost" as a problem in the same way as "direct to 
standard".  If anything, "direct to Boost" provides a compelling 
alternative to "direct to standard".  If people are skipping Boost and 
going directly to the standard because it's easier to get into the 
standard than to get into Boost, that's a problem.

As it stands, Boost is already very much of a mixed bag.  Some libraries 
represent the state of the art of C++ library development, some once did 
when they were released but have fallen behind, and some never did.  I'm 
happy to accept new libraries that raise the average quality of Boost, 
and as more and more old libraries fall into obsolescence, this becomes 
an increasingly low bar to clear.

-- 
Rainer Deyke (rainerd_at_[hidden])