Re: Technical Excellence?

From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-27 16:12:54

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:00 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Was there ever a discussion about creating a process for removal of
unmaintained libraries?
If not, I think there should be.