On 5/19/2016 5:17 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 19:39, Edward Diener wrote:
But I'll freely admit I have given up on trying to make any substantial changes to Boost. I prototyped as I said I would a Boost-lite transition layer suitable for a clean Boost fork which I'm using in all my own code. Nobody was interested.
Maybe no one was interested because no one knows what you are talking about.
This I think is inaccurate except maybe for your good self personally.
I presented a plan for how to technically transition to a C++ 14 only Boost 2.0 at my C++ Now 2015 presentation:
The talk was well attended, and by much of the more senior Boost community members.
I got the impression everyone understood well what was being proposed. Understanding was not the issue. Agreement with forking Boost into a C++ 14 only edition was the issue.
OK, I wasn't at C++ Now 2015.
The community *likes* things just the way they are: serving the Boost community, and to hell with the entire C++ community. A shame, and a waste, and I suspect in the long term self defeating.
Boost consists of about 130 different libraries. I venture to guess that there is not a single library author of those 130 different libraries that wouldn't like to see his library used more by the C++ community. But why you think that Boost library authors write only for other Boost library authors rather than for any C++ programmer is something you need to explain in specific terms. Just making that claim does not explain anything.
The C++ 14 only libraries contributed to date are clearly written first for C++ not Boost.
What do you mean that a library is "written first for Boost" ?
They are the future we should be proactively encouraging into a new clean ground up redesigned fork of Boost, a Boost 2.0, instead of corralling them into legacy and outdated packaging, build, design, documentation and idioms
What is outdated about the "packaging, build, design, documentation, and idioms of current Boost" ?
out of some misguided desire for serving the legacy Boost usership before that of the wider C++ community.
This is just more rhetoric without any basis in fact. People who write libraries for Boost inevitably write them to be useful for C++ programmers. In a wide variety of libraries some will be more or less useful for varying levels of C++ programming. You are on some sort of crusade sir in order to push forward your opinion that only libraries which use the latest C++ standard are useful for C++ programmers. I find very little technical basis for such an opinion. I do agree that libraries written using the latest C++ standard can offer some language facilities for easier use than otherwise. But believing that libraries not using the latest C++ standard are not worthwhile is just silly.