Hi Paul, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
I note some reservations and discussion about the underlying storage that might be a problem with large scale projects.
It doesn't seem to be practical problem for some reasonably large scaled projects, and a different framework might very well have other disadvantages. So I don't think this is a reason to put the library on hold now.
(Aside - I note that this is yet another example of a reviewer coming up with a fundamental objection that would been very much better aired a very long time [ago?]
I first raised my concerns in March 2009 when Joachim announced "preview 4" and asked for feedback. I was one of only two people to post comments at that time. See http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/03/149365.php . Prior to that, in July 2008 Dave Abrahams mentioned an interval tree that he had written (http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/140452.php) and in reply, Joachim wrote (http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/08/140653.php) : "You [Dave] mention your own implementation of an interval map using rb-trees. As you might have noticed my library implements interval sets finally via std::sets and interval_maps via std::maps. I am well aware that a specifically tailored interval tree has an optimization potential over a std::container implementation. So this is also on my todo list. Yet I wanted to focus on design, clarity and correctness first before improving performance using a more optimally tailored implementation." So as you can see, this fundamental issue was indeed raised a very long time ago (in fact just 3 months after the library was first mentioned), and Joachim re-assured us that he knew about the issues with his design and that he intended to rectify them.
OK. I believe this would be less likely to happen if 'candidate libraries' were more exposed to public view, and acquire more users who could spot weaknesses.
More users can certainly help to spot problems, but in this case the issue is not that the problem was not spotted.
I also can be very sympathetic to authors who won't want to go back to square one at this point in the process. They or others (Phil? ;-) - are more likely to do this with real uses and real uses waiting).
Regards, Phil.