Re: [boost] [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

On 15/03/2021 21:37, Emil Dotchevski wrote:

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:21 PM Niall Douglas via Boost mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 15/03/2021 19:01, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:

...

I fully agree with regard to the committee. It has been nothing but a cause of frustration and anger for the community of developers who actually use C++ to get work done. I have the strong impression that very few on the committee ever produce anything of strategic value for their employers.

This is about as categorically untrue as any statement could be.

As a general rule, those who regularly attend WG21 meetings are responsible for enterprise level software, having in large part contributed to the design, implementation, and maintenance of those mission critical systems.

The committee seems to be concerned more with internal and external politics than with serving the community. If that wasn't true there would be ZERO library additions that haven't been battle hardened by being deployed and established themselves as the defacto standard already.

The only thing they should be doing is rubber-stamping libraries that are already the standard for doing something. Instead, it's like a giant tube for force feeding us what we don't want (or else we would have adopted it already). For our own good of course.

Most libraries presented for standardisation ARE battle hardened libraries. However they were typically written for preceding C++ standards, and in outdated idioms and design patterns, and require modernisation which can involve substantial refactoring. Something not appreciated outside the committee is that both the library proposer(s), and their experienced users, often also want substantial refactoring after their empirical experience. It makes sense to make use of that experience rather than ignoring it. I speak here of the typical case, which are all those libraries which get standardised with little fanfare nor notice, which is the vast majority. Only for a small, though highly visible, subset has there been substantial design by committee. A lot of that is due to my aforementioned explanations, which are not due to politics, but rather resourcing (or lack thereof). Niall