Darren Cook wrote:
Goran Mitrovic wrote: Not really always. Don't you think that Boost can be (or even already is) overcrowded? I cannot really define this with words; it's a feeling that I get
from its everyday use. And there is a lot of conformation of my feeling I see in
my smalltalk with friends/coworkers.
Joel de Guzman wrote: Are you saying that we should not accept a library to avoid over-crowding boost? Hmmm, doesn't sound right to me.
I think this is exactly right. Each new library adds to testing load, thins out the available maintainers, and increases the overwhelming feeling you get when you look at the boost library list.
I never get that "overwhelming feeling" when I see the library list. OTOH, I get a secure feeling thinking that I have all these tools at my disposal and all are solid, peer-reviewed code. The Boost libraries is nothing compared to the list that Source Forge provides, yet no one complains about being overwhelmed by SF's immensity. It's actually an ingredient to its success! As to the testing load, I think a lot needs to be done to streamline the tests (as Rene Rivera noted). For example, Serialization already takes too much time in its "carpet bombing" approach to regression testing. It's not a problem of too many libraries. It's a problem of inefficient testing. Serialization, for example takes the A x B x C x D approach which is certainly a lot more taxing than X + N (whenever N new libraries are added). Really, this is just a matter of "growing up pains". I'm very positive that Boost will get past these problems, but certainly not at the expense of prohibiting exciting new libraries, just because of the perceived overload! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net