Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere, to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can do better than the rest of the world".
I'm torn on this subject. Even though at some level I agree with you that Boost should be concentrating on the core library development. I also see that the Boost ideals, and the Boost community provides what AFAIK is a unique development structure. We are a group of developers that don't shy away from trying to implement the ideal in all areas. Having my roots in knowledge heavy AI fields, and content heavy game development, I recognize the essential nature of good development tools. So I'm afraid of what separating, or jettisoning, the tools we have. Which, I guess, raises the specter of forming a "Boost Tools" (sub)group. We might even be able to attract more tool developers in such a framework, as it would be attractive to more developers. Sorry to ramble... But thinking about this just brings up many issues in my head ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo