Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Networking TS + Beast, NEW Tutorials, Read this to learn std::net !!!
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-03-17 08:42:35
>> It appears that, depending on whom you know, it might be easier to get
>> a library in the C++ standard compared to getting it into Boost.
> I have heard this and Iâm afraid that it might be true.
I'd say Chris right now would probably disagree. Beman probably would
disagree, Filesystem took far longer at WG21 than anyone reasonable
would have expected, and that's after it had gone through the Boost
process multiple times. Beman told me it took him between twenty and
twenty-five years of effort, depending on how you counted it. He wasn't
sure if he would do it again, if he could have travelled back in time to
tell his younger self.
I've heard Eric in the past say it is equally hard to get a library into
Boost as into WG21, and they are both quite different processes with
different needs and requirements. And he's said on more than one
occasion that he only has enough in him to get Ranges past either Boost,
or WG21. He doesn't have enough in him to do both.
I'd echo Eric's sentiments on this completely. I don't have it in me to
ever get a fundamentals library into Boost again. Besides, I'd likely
end up getting divorced and my children no longer speaking to me. It's
not worth it, personally speaking.
>> > I know that getting a library into Boost is no small task (Niall may
>> know that better than anyone on the planet), but if it is worth
>> putting in std then it is worth putting in Boost first.
>> It appears that he has learned his lesson and won't repeat that
>> mistake. :)
> I hope not. This is a âmistakeâ that bears repeating.
I can see me doing a small niche library one day. But never again for a
I would also say that the Boost review process is a poor fit for niche
libraries. There isn't a sufficient critical mass of domain experts for
a good review, it ends up becoming a popularity vote by the
inexperienced-in-that-very-specific-topic. In reviews in the past I've
been dismayed to see the review of someone I know is a domain expert in
a library being weighted equally to reviews by those who were not. But
there is little you can do about it, when a mere five people are
reviewing, there isn't the numbers to weigh one much heavier than the
others. So a library ends up passing, despite that the domain expert
found severe flaws in the proposed design.
I'm all for more libraries heading to Boost first, where Boost is a good
fit for them. Boost was great for Outcome, precisely because Outcome had
so much review feedback available. Fundamental libraries have that. But
niche libraries don't fit Boost well. For example, I don't personally
think that the Graphics proposal would fit a Boost review well. The
bikeshedding would be enormous, the topic is quite niche, and the true
correct design is probably three separate Graphics libraries, the same
way as XML processing has three entirely separate ideal ways of library
support. There also several big, well established, dominant API
libraries none of which have a snowball's chance at WG21 due to using
ancient C++, or C.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net