On 9/13/24 23:33, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:25 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
However, I think it is fair to ask a new author to explain why the proposed library is useful, and it is the author's task to correct possible misconceptions that may become apparent among the community during the discussion. I think, the community members should be able to express their thoughts on the library, even if those thoughts are not positive.
It's unreasonable to act like the author is supposed to spoon-feed you information about the library you're remarking on if you insist on being willfully ignorant.
There's a difference between asking about whether or not a library has justifiable utility and making criticisms based on ignorance.
We all come ignorant to a new proposed library. That is unless you have become familiar with it before the proposal. It is not unusual that viewers make assumptions based on the brief information posted in the announcement or comments by other reviewers without digging deeper. It doesn't mean those people are willing to remain ignorant, they might do those kinds of shortcuts for various understandable reasons - lack of time, for one. Assuming ill intent in this case is rather presumptuous on your part. In any case, as I said, it is unfortunately possible that misunderstandings appear during the discussion, and the author should be prepared to clear them.
Some unsolicited advice would be, consider where this attitude is coming from that you feel the need to approach everything with "I deserve to be mean".
I don't see my comments in that discussion as mean. Ill-informed is more likely. I was just expressing my (ill-informed) opinion, and I didn't insult anyone, as far as I can see. And as I said earlier, the fact that I was ill-informed was on me, and I should probably have put more effort in looking into the library.