On 18 Oct 2013 at 16:37, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
I agree with Joel, I always assumed (few years ago) that that's what would happen and I'm still surprised it's not seriously considered. I guess that's a discussion for post-modularization but I fear that this discussion will get in limbo and hurt boost like the issues with the review process.
I suspect some or all of these reasons have something to do with it: 1. Boost is much bigger now => more effort to modernise, more maintainers to obtain buy in. 2. Boost is much older now => more maintainers are more emotionally disengaged, have family commitments and other subtractors from free time. I know when my first baby appears in a few months, I will be choosing my free time very differently from the past. 3. A lot of people do genuinely think C++03 is "good enough". 4. A lot of people don't know how so much better programming in pure C++11 is compared to grafting some C++11 onto a C++03 codebase. Until they write greenfield C++11 projects, they won't fully know and appreciate the game change. 5. Lack of decent Visual Studio support for C++11. That changes with VS2013 of course, but it still affects a lot of developers e.g. my opposition to C++11-ising my code would be mainly a "it won't be portable yet" argument (which I ignored in AFIO which is some C++11 only of course). I think Beman might have an idea in a v2.x Boost - one whose libraries *solely* consist of C++11 upgraded libraries. Any libraries from Boost v1.x not upgraded to C++11 get dropped from v2.x. I look forward to the aghastness at the idea of dropping libraries from Boost :) Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/