Re: [boost] Boost vs Std library features (was: Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th)

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:24 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:34 PM Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

LEWG is not an efficient mechanism for designing libraries, because iterating here is vastly faster and better than iterating at WG21 meetings.

I agree with the conclusion that WG21 should stop designing libraries.

It's clear LEWG isn't designing libraries. They're completely dependent on authors to bring a design and modify it in a way that makes the committee happy. My conclusion is that LEWG isn't great at reviewing libraries -- and with libraries going around Boost they miss the review and likely the user base that confirms that the library makes sense. Note that in my experience a decent percentage of the library work is actually modifying the existing library.

And should also stop contemplating non-foundational libraries.

Please define what you think that is. Would std::process qualify, because I'd like to think it does? I'm assuming you'd agree that std::format/std::print are important?

But until there's a reasonable library ecosystem using STD as a distribution mechanism will continue. Boost happens to be one of the better such ecosystem distribution mechanisms, still.

It's fine -- but I'd argue that there's a lot of people that avoid boost like the plague. It doesn't matter if that's fully rationale, but it's a perception that clearly is out there. Jeff