On 3 Aug 2014 at 11:32, Robert Ramey wrote:
To me the "type class" of the Hana library is a muddled re-implemenation of the boost concept check library. Its much more complicated and subtle and not as well documented and doesn't add anything to BCC.
You probably didn't mean to Robert, but that review came across as mean spirited. I'm going to assume you didn't mean it that way, the same way you didn't mean it that way when you hassled Paul, also a GSoC student by the way, in his C++ Now presentation about porting AFIO to Boost. Hana is different. This student engineer new to Boost and the way things are done here has tried to break new ground and do new stuff which demonstrates the power delivered by C++ 14 compilers. He's taken a very Haskell-y route, right down to the un-C++ terminology and not using STL idioms, but then so what if he has? The STL is an ancient legacy design, it may be time to diverge drastically, or it may not. I have no idea if what he's done or how he's done it is the best approach - I'm not competent in this area like Eric or Joel is. But how he went about the prior art research, the benchmarking of all implementation approaches, the presentation of his work at C++ Now before proceeding with implementation, all of this bodes extremely well indeed. Whatever he has done, it isn't going to be ill judged and muddled, that's for sure. Hana isn't BCC. It's far more - it's potentially a hint of how C++ in the 2020s could look like, which hopefully is not how things are currently done right now. I hope that the Boost culture is still able to welcome radically new ideas and new engineers and stride forth instead of this constant defence of the (ancient) past and its way of doing things as if we're losing something vital other than our membership, which if I can remind you, has been dropping for two years now. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/