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. Is the problem still with the name, or is it with the category description, or the category itself? The intent of the page is to encourage people to explore the Boost libraries. I tried to create categories that would appeal to various interests and ability levels and that would give a broad overview of the sorts of things Boost has to offer. I thought that support for the latest programming concepts and techniques would have been of real interest to some. If that's a mistake, I could eliminate that category altogether and move its contents to "Specialized Libraries". If the categorization is sound but the name/description is bad, perhaps someone could suggest something better. Most of the libraries in that group are beyond my own skill level and experience, so it's difficult for me to describe the group well.