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. Users correctly or incorrectly presume that all libraries in the Boost collection will have the same consistently high level of quality in terms of library API, documentation, performance, and fitness to task. As this is almost impossible to sustain over time, eventually an experienced Boost user recognizes that some libraries are better than others. And they may discover that some libraries are a trap, unable to deliver on their promises, or perhaps they are not as well maintained anymore. In other words quality varies significantly from library to library. During the "golden age of Boost" which occurred at the inception of Boost and stretched until 2011, this was less of a problem as the people proposing libraries were experts in the field who also participated in the standards process. But now there is less participation in Boost and more participation in the standardization process. Mailing list volume is down and fewer reviewers appear for new libraries. Boost also lost its Great Founders and momentum slowed. I was told a long time ago that the formal review process is as much about evaluating the author as it is about evaluating the library. Because once a library goes into the collection it needs to be maintained, and only the original author has the best understanding of the library and how it might evolve over time. For example an author of inconsistent temperament who might abandon their library after it passes a review would be harmful to the integrity of the collection. I'm not saying this is applicable in this case but we have a similar problem. 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. Klemens: why do you have zero users? The question is of course rhetorical because we already have the answers. No effort was made to acquire them, no thoughtfulness was put into actual user needs, no users were consulted during the development of the library. How many times was Peter Dimov consulted during the library's development? Did Christopher Kohloff offer his input? In the first review cycle for the library it was said that the library is single threaded and it made sense to optimize: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2023/08/254938.php I got no answer to this question so I asked it again: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2023/08/254958.php Still no answers to this question from August, the author provided no information about how the library is optimized, what kind of improvement was seen, the methodology for optimization, any kind of benchmarks, and so on. There is just a handwavey claim of performance. Is this how low Boost has fallen now? What happened to the engineering rigor and discipline that was the hallmark of Boost's heyday? 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?" Sad. Thanks