If I may chime in briefly on the whole debate- if you watch any of the cppcon talks, or in fact talk to game devs, you'll find that many companies are heavily invested in older platforms, in fact as far back as MSVC 2008 in some cases. This is not arbitrary behaviour, it is grounded decisions either based on investiture in infrastructure or in some cases, maintaining codebases which have been in existence for long periods of time. Those companies may not be the target userbase of boost, but they might be. Do you wish to exclude them? Given that basically no compilers supported C++11 in it's entirety until very recently, I think the jump to ditch old standards support is in poor taste, even on a forward-going basis, and will exclude many potential users. Cheers, M On 23/05/2016 1:55 a.m., Norbert Wenzel wrote:
On 05/22/2016 03:27 PM, Vinnie Falco wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Norbert Wenzel
wrote: But any new library that requires C++14 is of no use to our company
What about C++11?
Yes, C++11 is used extensively in new code and is supported by GCC 4.8. Older devices are less likely to get any new features, thus support for older compilers with new versions of Boost is probably not needed. In my reply I was specifically referring to the idea of making a C++14 Boost 2.0 subset/fork for the reason to support *the entire* C++ community, which seemed a bit contradictory from my point of view.
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg
wrote: If the devices are network attached then this sounds like a great usecase for testing the beast http boost library?
Note that Beast requires C++11 (see http://vinniefalco.github.io/beast/beast/intro/requirements.html)
Thanks for that suggestion, but permanent network connection and HTTP are not available at the moment.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost