16.01.2015 0:10, Robert Ramey wrote:
1. The library size does matter. The above is predicated that Distribution of Boost Libraries will continue indefinately to be distributed as a complete package. Our recent efforts including modularization, reduction of dependencies, etc. will eventually result in a deployment model in which acceptance into boost and deployment will be decoupled. Users will install subsets of boost that they actually use. Well, we can invite some libraries into Boost after modularization. Or, someone could try to implement the boost.finance as a module for the modularized Boost.
So I think that trying too keep boost small - though attractive - doesn't look forward to the future. I think the main challenge to Boost and C++ in the future is to find a way to produce better quality libraries. It's not about keeping the library small. It's about benefits and costs of the decision to include a library into the Boost. Even after modularization, the costs will not completely disappear.
For those who wants just a set of independently maintained modules, we already have Github.
2. The boost community has to support everything that is included into the boost library. What if a maintainer of some library abandons it? For a general-purpose library, there are chances that someone will take responsibility for it. For a domain-specific library, such chances seem to be negligible.
True - and we need to find a way to address that. But that's no reason for keeping the library small or letting it grow - it's a different question. Good, big, cheap. Choose 2 of 3. Boost is cheap. I'd like it to be rather good than big.
-- Best regards, Sergey Cheban