At 03:49 PM 5/7/2003, richard_fanta wrote:
Out of the last 50 apps you wrote that did file access, how many involved CD-ROMS/DVDs that were ISO 9660 filesystems?
All of the commercial apps I've done for over ten years have to run from ISO 9660 filesystems (among others). The bug reports remind me of
--- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, Beman Dawes
forget.
--Beman
Point well taken, but this would probably be expected of digital mapping applications. [I'm sure you've done a lot more, too.] No one is suggested precluding the use of ISO 9660 filesystems, and I don't see how adding "last access" time to the Boost filesystem library would do that. I'm sure that something reasonable could be agreed for "last access" time there, while also accomodating the very common (and I would argue greater volume) of applications that use read/write Posix and Windows filesystems. I recently read an article summarizing an interview with you (Beman). In it you had stated a highly laudable goal of creating a set of C++ libraries to make it competitive with those available in Java, Python, etc. IMO, to make C++ competitive in this way, you have to make it very easy for folks to do basic things that they expect to be there (such as what we've been discussing here). As a user, having to augment C++ libraries fairly often to meet common needs is an annoyance (as a relative C++ newbie current lacking the skill of many here, it's hard to preserve the same style as Boost) that makes me want to go elsewhere (e.g. back to Java). Also, again (currently ;^) lacking mastery to make such additions cross-platform, my app will likely fail in that regard too, hence losing one of the principle benefits of Boost. Neither of these is a good thing, and both cost time.