Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-11 08:45:34

El 11/09/2024 a las 12:41, Zach Laine via Boost escribió:
> 
> These kinds of additions are pretty rare.  Compare static_vector,
> flat_map, and the modification of optional to have the T&
> sepcialization to the number of library features added in the same
> time period that did *not* come from Boost.  Also, all of those things
> are "old" in some sense.  None of them was added in the last 10 years.

I'm not following the static_vector standardization, but in the flat_map 
case, the standardized std::flat_map is significantly different (split 
storage of keys and values) from the boost implementation, so I wouldn't 
say boost::container::flat_map is the base of std::flat_map (and IMHO 
reusing the same name will be a problem for C++ users).

> 3) The tools suck.  Boost build and our doc chain are great once you
> have them set up, but are impenetrable to newcomers.  They are
> non-standard, which is unavoidable for a doc chain (there is no de
> facto standard), but odd and disappointing when it comes to build (the
> world has standardized on CMake, for better or worse).

The way things work in Boost is doing the work. It's a federation of 
libraries so even if the Foundation might have a vision, the Foundation 
can only encourage or look for contributors that will do the work. 
Modifying 160+ libraries is no joke. When a project scales, changing 
direction is not easy/feasible, especially if it's a paid work.

> That last point is very important.  #4 is not a criticism, so much as
> pointing out a very different orientation of Boost vs. WG21.  There's
> nothing wrong with this.  It does however indicate that a new project,
> focused exclusively on road-testing new libraries bound for the
> standard, should be created.  That project is Beman.

That's why I mentioned in my review that both projects should cooperate. 
Beman could take a Boost utility/library for the standard and Boost 
could take a Beman library (regardless of its inclusion in the final 
draft) and expand/improve it.

> This is not accurate.  I think the consensus among Beman participants
> is that Boost should do what Boost does well -- peer reviewed C++
> libraries -- and Beman should do its thing -- provide a testing ground
> and distribution mechanism not for C++ libraries in general, but for
> C++ standard library entities *only*.  These are very different aims.

I agree.

Best,

Ion