On 17 Jun 2015 at 21:59, David Sankel wrote:
That's a bit of a strawman, but yes I'd like to review core hanna (which is mostly what is used in the examples) and then review major libraries built on hanna (such as the Haskell typeclass stack that is currently included).
That's a fair point. Are you proposing a Hana core and a Hana applications split? I see particular value in this if a Hana core library can become MSVC compatible much sooner than a Hana applications library. For me, the lack of MSVC support - even with winclang getting ever closer to replacing MSVC - is a showstopper to me using Hana at all in my own code. And from last month onwards I stopped supporting VS2013 in my new code, so I'm hardly being backwards. There is precedent for a library not supporting MSVC initially on entering Boost with support being added later, though if I remember correctly it hasn't been common since VS2003 which was the first MSVC with partial template specialisation.
The boost home page does not state that boost libraries "are intended to *eventually *be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications". It's a subtle, but big difference. One sentence is attractive to the majority of companies who make real software, and the other is not.
C++, more or less, is a language for engineers who make multi-platform, large-scale, high-performance, long-lived applications and libraries. I like that Boost has been a library collection for these folks and hope it stays that way.
Also a fair point. However, probably a majority of Boost users are on toolsets at least a decade old, and won't be able to even conduct feasibility studies of C++ 11 libraries for years more yet. If you leave the Boost ecosystem things diverge, some users are on bleeding edge clang only C++, others on a pre-98 C++ level. I'd say there are a lot more of the latter especially in games and embedded systems than the former. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/