On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Robert Ramey
I have to say I don't get the point of such a review.
Boost has never had a requirement that a library support anything other than the latest available C++ standard.
Yet, there's lots of "muck" in many boost headers to support ancient compilers, and (I assume) there exists users that are grateful for that muck, as it means they can use boost in their codebases that are, for whatever reason, stuck using older compilers. For example, some people use boost::shared_ptr because they don't have std::shared_ptr. Much of boost is in C++11, so much of boost has successfully obsoleted itself!, other than for users stuck in the past. A portion of boost is used precisely because it is NOT C++11. The real question is what percentage of the boost community has upgraded their compilers to C++11 or greater. And what might this say for C++11 adoption in general. And what does that say about boost moving forward - which users are we trying to help? And, the reverse question (which Niall is asking), how much of Boost has moved to C++11 or greater, even if a large(?) percentage of the community hasn't. And if so, what does that say about Boost and/or C++ adoption. ie is Boost pushing the adoption of C++11? Would boost push C++11 better if its libraries were backwards compatible (so as to "ease" people into C++11) or should a library abandon old C++ and "force" users to move forward? If I was to write a new library, that _could_ be old-C++ compatible, but with extra work, should I put in that extra work? I think there are interesting questions here for Boost and C++. Not sure if Niall is heading towards those questions or others. --- The further question, which I think should be discussed here or at BoostCon/C++Now, is what is Boost's role *today*? Is boost still a stepping stone to the standard? (I find that with the standard's new pace, and with its push to use TS's, "stepping stone" is now a more minor role for boost. For better or worse - ie I'm not sure if it is good for the standard.) Or is boost now a place for good libraries, most of which aren't general enough to be in std, but are really good and really useful when you need them? Or is boost a maintenance effort for old libraries for older compilers. (I don't think Boost is just that, but is it part of its role?) Tony