David Abrahams writes:
Beth Jacobson <bethj@bajac.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
All other issues aside, I find the "Cutting-Edge Libraries" group ill-conceived and bordering on the edge of offensive (for the library author).
I agree, but I think we've all decided that category is going away (right?)
I thought the objections were to the original name (bleeding edge), which I changed to cutting edge to sound less experimental.
I didn't notice the change. You're right that it sounds slightly less experimental, but it is reminiscent of and still suggests "bleeding edge." More importantly, it's a misleading distinction for most people. The description
# If words like "generic" and "metaprogramming" get your blood racing, this is the place for you. These libraries provide a framework for trying out the latest programming techniques, and like all Boost Libraries are stable enough for use in production code.
basically is useful for the programmer who's looking at Boost as a learning experience, but is likely to put off the production programmer who doesn't want her blood racing. The last bit doesn't provide much reassurance; it sounds defensive and unconvincing. This category also suggests that anything you haven't put there is somehow less sophisticated.
The whole idea of a "simple/advanced/cutting-edge" hierarchy doesn't seem to work, to me. I'm looking at Boost.Random in the simple category, for example. From my point of view, understanding what that library provides requires a deep understanding of numerical issues that's out of reach for most programmers.
Is the parameter library "cutting edge?" I think so. Does using it require great sophistication? No. In fact, it belongs in the "C++ Enhancements" category, because it provides, essentially, a language extension in library form. As does lambda.
Exactly my sentiments. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering