John Maddock wrote:
I see his point in dealing with new compilers: say 10 years down the line (being rather optimistic on how long lived your software will be :-) ), but ask him how many of his current staff will still be around then to maintain a bespoke version ? Sure, no one can make guarentees about third party code, but remember that the chances of commercial produced - closed source - code being supported over that kind of timescale is essentially nil: anyone here remember OWL?
Yes I remember OWL. But that probably only shows how old I am :-( The unfortunate aspect of all this talk about how logical it is for companies to use Boost libraries, is that it's logical. But the corporate world is rarely logical. And hence it takes great effort to move it in a logical direction from the bottom up.
And finally, point your boss towards Adobe or SAP, if these big players are using Boost, there's probably something in it :-)
That is likely the biggest factor we can count on for people to use in convincing corporate management to use Boost libraries. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo