I won't argue that today, although I'm going in the opposite direction with my Metagraph project. I'm making the pro- argument in my upcoming BoostCon paper/talk on MPL.Graph.
I wonder if anyone can say something about the new graph concept hierarchy? I don't see any origin docs yet.
The BGL concept hierarchy is being re-evaluated based on the rewrite of the data structures and algorithms, meaning that the concepts come after we implement most of the data structures and algorithms. We will then analyze the library and define the concepts based on the types and algorithms we have in place. After constructing the concept hierarchy, we will refine the graph types, then the concepts, etc. This iterative method is the approach we've chosen for Origin. There was a time when we started to build the concept hierarchy before the data structures were in place and even at the same time the data structures were being implemented, but that wasn't working. We found that building data structures to model concepts, at least initially, restricted us to the design decisions we made with the concepts.
I'd like to stay compatible and I'm also curious what was found lacking in the old graph concepts. The unifying graph concepts in BGLv1 are really impressive for making all graph libraries adaptable to its interface & algos.
So, having not constructed the concept hierarchy, I cannot yet tell you what we are lacking.