Edward Diener wrote:
Mickey Moore wrote:
I appreciate everyone's comments (and I'll respond to a number below), but it seems interest in this is not widespread enough to justify trying to formally include it. I'll probably clean it up a bit and post it on my own web-site at some point in case someone somewhere might find it useful.
It was a good exercise in humility to note that, judging from the message frequency, people are at least a hundred times more interested in the new logo for the Boost web-site. :)
No, it probably only means that people are more opinionated when it comes to artistic design than they are knowledgable about polar complex numbers <g>.
Or maybe a whole lot of people eager to contribute somehow who are having a little of C. Northcote Parkinson's nuclear adversion that we have grown so fond of mentioning (1958). A question: Is this form of the "bicycle shed"--which seems to be the most prevailent within Boost--a bad thing? When Poul-Henning Kamp was writing on the topic in 1999, he seemed to be primarily referring to undue discussion on a proposal as an unnecessary barrier to its progress. On Boost lists, though, most of this activity is not obstructionist, but perhaps just people attracted more to the task of drawing pretty rockets than to fixing bugs in their least favorite part of Boost code. Beman Dawes' writing on the web page seems to indicate that this latter sort of activity is the primary problem, without mentioning the obstructionist effect. Aaron W. LaFramboise