Hey @Howard Hinnant I would surely like to contribute towards this potential project. I too agree that std::chrono has much better compiler support and is supported by almost all modern compilers and also has better overall support. However I think we must not deprecate boost::chrono as it provides users with additional functionality which std::chrono lacks. So we may reimplement boost::chrono in terms of std::chrono. What do you think? Thanks! Atharva From: Howard Hinnant via Boost Sent: 09 August 2019 06:31 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Howard Hinnant Subject: [boost] Potential project: Resolving boost::chrono conflicts withstd::chrono Possible project for someone looking for a boost project to contribute to: boost::chrono was created soon after std::chrono was proposed and served people well for experimenting with this library prior to migrating to C++11. Fast forward 8 years: Now we have two competing chrono libraries: boost::chrono and std::chrono. And it is not rare for people to use non-chrono boost libraries, which in turn use boost::chrono, and for those same people to use std::chrono. Invariably what happens is they get horribly complicated compile-time errors which boil down to: boost::chrono does not interoperate with std::chrono. And these errors often come from deep within libraries which people are simply trying to use. The pitch: boost::chrono, and other boost::libs needs to defer to std::chrono for C++11 and later. This would make boost significantly easier to use. This is likely a multi-project effort, and I don’t even have a concrete strategy in mind. This is a problem in search of a solution, not vice-versa. And I often hear of enthusiastic people who want to jump in and lend a helping hand. I think this would be a terrific area to point such talent towards. Howard