On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 2:32 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
People who don't want to use Boost are unlikely to use your fork, which, presumably, is supposed to be a part of Boost. Those people are probably using standalone Asio or something else entirely instead of Boost.Asio today anyway, and will continue to do so.
This is false. I regularly get requests from folks who want to use Beast with standalone Asio. I do not support this configuration for a couple of reasons. First, I don't want there to be two versions of the library. And second, because Beast is sufficiently popular that folks will grudgingly use Boost just so they can have access to Beast (and JSON and URL). Beast has brought in users to Boost that would not have otherwise used Boost, simply because the alternatives for HTTP and Websocket are not great. Nothing stands still however, and this situation has been improving. There are standalone libraries implementing functionality such as HTTP, REST clients and servers, and websocket which are gaining in popularity. Boost's competitive advantage is diminishing over time. A fork of Asio which is well-supported, upon which new things are built (and with reduced dependencies) creates value to give users more reasons to adopt Boost (or to come back to Boost after abandoning it). You seem to target an audience that wants to use Boost but specifically
not Boost.System. It seems like a rather narrow audience.
I use std::error_code as a stand-in for the general desire for users to prefer std library components over their Boost equivalents. Thanks