Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost

On 10/23/18 3:01 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 8:27 PM

[...]

I'm arguing that the C++ standardization process is not useful for most C++ libraries.

True, but I don't see the problem. Most libraries never aspire to get standardized anyway.

I think there are 70 proposals to be considered in San Diego.

...

The committee can't handle it. This is pretty much a demonstrable fact as far as I'm concerned. (I realize that people will disagree with this premise). So this leaves a vacuum which organizations such a Boost can/should fill.

Why does boost have to define its role in terms of its relation to the standardization process?

I think that was part of original motivation for the founding of Boost. And I do see Boost as providing those things that C++ needs but shouldn't be part of the standard. So I do see role of Boost as being defined in relation to the standard.

Can't it just be a collection of well designed and well maintained open source libraries? Actually I'd like to see much more higher level libraries such as Beast in boost

Right! +1

than the next compiler torture test

(of course that would require someone writing, submitting and

maintaining such libraries).

Not sure if we have a violent agreement here without recognizing it.

I think we mostly agree. But since we're both part of Boost, we can't openly acknowledge this. Robert Ramey