Le 22/05/2016 à 13:18, Niall Douglas a écrit :
At C++ Now a number of informal meetings showed there to be frustrations with the current ecosystem around the Boost C++ Libraries (to paraphrase a founder of Boost, "Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*". I agree completely. Recent and recurrent boost-dev discussions have raised the lack of cmake based tooling; I agree also that we should provide a way to build Boost with CMake. lack of ABI management Agreed, but I don't know how to check this. and the consequent ODR violation when mixing Boost versions in the same process; I'm not sure this should be something we want to provide. Does the standard libraries have this goal? the anti-social behaviour of Boost towards library end users, Could you elaborate? new ideas, new blood and the wider C++ community; and the chronic lack of maintenance of up to half the Boost libraries.
One question which needs to be answered is whether a clean reboot of Boost from the first principles of proving high quality C++ libraries well suited for use with the latest C++ standard is viable. This new collection of C++ libraries would be started completely from scratch (even if some existing libraries were ported into the new organisation), so ANYTHING is possible. All we need is a critical mass of library developers willing to collaborate on developing a shared infrastructure mutually beneficial to all participants, whether library developer or library end user. Count with me, at least for defining the goals ;-)
To that end of discovering if this critical mass is there, five minute lightning talk topics are requested for CppCon this September on this topic: I'm almost sure I couldn't be there this year :( "What design pattern, practice or idiom should a standards aspiring collection of C++ 14/17 libraries share?" I don't see how this is related to Rebooting Boost. Could you elaborate? Should the talks address whatever issue concerns Boost and how Rebooting Boost would solve them?
Best, Vicente