Robert Ramey wrote:
If one want's to add an externallly defined language independent format to the above goals, I think one will be doomed to failure. Of course I could be wrong and anyone is free to take a crack at it. Lots of people have. I'm not sure how all the other systems out there compare to boost serialization these days.
So I don't see an externally documented format for this boost serialization. Hence I don't see anything like boost serialization ever appearing in the standard. Perhaps some system which might functionally similar but I think it would have to be grown from scratch with a different set of goals and priorities.
I think you're being too pessimistic -- standards that could work have been developed multiple times and places. No doubt, though, this is too much for a single person and I agree with you that boost.serialization might not have ever completed. Off the top of my head I think the following would be good, well-documented options: - CDR for truly portable binary data http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/02-06-51 - JSON text format - http://www.json.org/ - YAML text format - http://www.yaml.org/ So, if someone would spend a couple days writing new archives we'd be in business. BTW, I have seen the lack of a documented format become a reason to not use Boost serialization on a project.
Which is the reason that I think the whole concept of library standards have been over-applied and even detremental to the future success of C++.
This too I believe is wrong. Every human system of significance rests on standards. You and I couldn't be conversing now if we didn't have a pile of IEEE standards, posix standards, W3C standards, and yes, programming standards. For C++, there is a real effect of having something in the standard -- companies that refuse to use Boost will insist on the use of ISO standard C++. Jeff