Jeff Garland wrote:
BTW, I have seen the lack of a documented format become a reason to not use Boost serialization on a project.
No doubt this has happened - and for good reason. I such a format is required - This "right choice" is probably not boost serialization. Boost Serializaition has (in my view) lots of appeal - and its applicable to a very wide class of problems. But it can't be all things to all people (an all host languages). Sorry, but I think different tool developed with a different set of priority goals is required for that.
Which is the reason that I think the whole concept of library standards have been over-applied and even detremental to the future success of C++.
This too I believe is wrong. Every human system of significance rests on standards. You and I couldn't be conversing now if we didn't have a pile of IEEE standards, posix standards, W3C standards, and yes, programming standards. For C++, there is a real effect of having something in the standard -- companies that refuse to use Boost will insist on the use of ISO standard C++.
I know my view on this subject isn't widely held. We've touched upon it before and maybe we will again - but for now we're frying other fish. Robert Ramey