Re: [Boost-users] [Phoenix] review reminder

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Phoenix] review reminder
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-29 23:02:15

Robert Ramey wrote:
> I spent some time looking at this library.  I'm looking at the documentation
> in release 1.36 for phoenix in the spirit library documentation.
> 
> Here are a few observations:
> 
> I don't really know enough about functional programming in order
> to write a revew.  My perspective is of someone who is interested in
> this subject and wants to use phoenix as a vehicule to learn more about it
> and experiment with it to see to what extent it can help me with the
> programming problems that I come upon in my daily work.
> 
> I don't like the current trend in assigning "cute" names to
> libraries.  E.G. spirit, phoenix, proto, xpressive, oven, - I'm
> sure there are others.  The universe libraries is sufficiently large
> that given a problem, I'm included to scan a list of library names
> and drill down into those whose names suggest they might help
> on my current problem.  These names don't help me with that.
> I don't expect anyone to change a current name, and It's not
> a huge issue - but it is a minor annoyance.

With all due respect, I'd like to preserve that right. It's my
library anyway. In as much as I am not forcing you to provide
a "cute" name for Serialization, please don't force me to do
acronyms or some such.

On a related note, I'm happy with the cute name "Boost" Libraries,
instead of something bland like... hah! I can't even think of
a name or acronym. Hmmm... C++ SLE? "standard library extensions".
Yuk!

> When I perused the library documentation, I was left with
> the idea that I had a general understanding of what it does
> and that I could make use of it should I decide to.  This
> struck a very positive note for me.
> 
> However, I would much like to see a few simple
> examples of complete applications which show how the
> library can actually shorten/and/or improve the final result.
> The "First Practical Example" is too trivial and it seems
> to be the only real example.
> 
> After writing the above, I looked up the references cited
> in the documentation.  I found that I had the same complaint
> about most of them.  The John Hughes paper (1989!) did
> have some interesting examples.  Maybe implementing
> the newton-raphson method on in terms of phoenix might
> have helped me.

Agreed!

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net