Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 12:09:32 PM UTC-5, Nevin Liber wrote:

On 17 May 2016 at 11:37, Robert Ramey javascript:> wrote:

...

There is one big lesson from all this:

a) Boost is not a company - we don't take direction from the top. b) Boost is not a government - we actually do something. c) Boost is a religion - want something changed, start preaching. Get other people on board. Convince people people to start doing something.

Boost is not a religion. It's a set of tools; no more, no less.

Does Boost have to evolve? Of course it does, because the world around it has evolved. It came about when it was 13 years between releases of the standard, and there were a lot of obvious-in-retrospect libraries (especially vocabulary types) missing (shared_ptr, function, optional, variant, any, etc.). Now it is 3 years between standard releases, and in some ways making a proposal directly to the committee is easier if you want to get your library out there: shorter commitment, only need one implementation, no need to support that implementation for years under multiple compilers, etc.

Which is unfortunate. C++ standard committee should focus on standardizing existing practice. The boost process helps create a larger feedback and implementation experience, and would help avoid major gaffes like _v variable templates. Not everyone can give feedback at standards meetings, but it is fairly easy to give feedback during a formal review of a library for boost.