Re: [boost] Dropping C++03 support (again)

actively harmful

Well it isn't for those users stuck on c++11. There are users for which the new facilities are quite beneficial.

rush to deliver spaceship broke some code

So what? Progress can't be made without *some* mistakes -- as you should know, there are a lot of complicated cases. The fixes for that breakage weren't difficult.

specific to WG21, it is a problem for any large organization. As Samo Burja explains in this blog post, functional institutions are the exception not the norm:

All this applies to Boost just as well as WG21.

Boost should not follow. Instead, we should lead.

As a member of Boost since the early 2000's I couldn't agree more. I don't think we are doing that currently, sorry. And continuing support for ancient revisions of the standard isn't a way to lead to the future. Vinnie -- I don't want to get into a big debate about this, it's not worth our time. But, yeah -- I disagree. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:47 AM Vinnie Falco wrote:

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:

...

I'd dare to suggest we go one step further while we're here. We should join the 3 year cycle and drop support for c++11 in 2026, c++14 in 2029, etc.

Hmm, no I don't think that's a good idea. Dropping C++11 provides very little benefit compared to dropping C++03. And breaking existing Boost programs every three years doesn't sound particularly exciting.

...

...it matches what the standard is doing so it's already part of the bigger culture of evolution.

I don't agree that the Committee's three-year release cycle is beneficial. In fact I think it is actively harmful as things get rushed and it attracts thrill-seekers pursuing instant gratification. C++20 for example in its rush to "deliver spaceship" broke some existing programs.

In fact I would even say that WG21 is not effectively delivering on the needs of the greater C++ community. Not for lack of effort, but because the bureaucratic structure invites politics and creates perverse incentives. C++11 was a huge success thanks to Boost, and represents an outlier in terms of the quality of the Committee's output. What we are seeing today is a reduction of output, and a reversion to the mean.

This is not a problem specific to WG21, it is a problem for any large organization. As Samo Burja explains in this blog post, functional institutions are the exception not the norm:

https://samoburja.com/functional-institutions-are-the-exception/

Boost should not follow. Instead, we should lead.

Thanks