On 10/8/23 6:21 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 5:31 PM Emil Dotchevski via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with an author seeking acceptance in Boost as a way to acquire users.
Then let me educate you.
LOL
I challenge the author with this exhortation: get a user or two, show that this thing is compelling enough to be used outside of the Boost community in an actual project, and then submit it. What is so hard about that? What's the rush to put this into the collection? If it's good it will be just as good two or three releases from now. And no one will be impeded from using it even before it becomes part of a release.
I would note that many libraries have been accepted into Boost with zero users. In fact many libraries have been accepted into Boost that have many weaknesses and problems with the condition that these be addressed before the library is released. This is certainly the case with the two libraries I'm responsable for: Serialization an Safe Numerics. When I proposed serialization the first time it was rejected for a lot of good reasons. Nothing wrong with that. The review was very helpful to me and motivated me to double down and address all the noted short comings. It was accepted a year later. When I proposed Safe Numerics, it had a lot of problems and design flaws and relative little interest from users. (not that it has a lot today). But enough reviewers thought that it had potential to be useful if it's issues were addressed. I don't know that these experiences are typical. But it seems to me that very few Boost libraries have significant users before being proposed for inclusion in boost.
Must we resign ourselves to the indignity of statements like "I don't see anything wrong with an author seeking acceptance in Boost as a way to acquire users?"
I don't think it's sad at all. Seems to me like its the traditional way of doing things. One needs the Boost imprimatur to get any users at all. Robert Ramey