On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jeff Garland via Boost
I'd dare to suggest we go one step further while we're here. We should join the 3 year cycle and drop support for c++11 in 2026, c++14 in 2029, etc.
Hmm, no I don't think that's a good idea. Dropping C++11 provides very little benefit compared to dropping C++03. And breaking existing Boost programs every three years doesn't sound particularly exciting.
...it matches what the standard is doing so it's already part of the bigger culture of evolution.
I don't agree that the Committee's three-year release cycle is beneficial. In fact I think it is actively harmful as things get rushed and it attracts thrill-seekers pursuing instant gratification. C++20 for example in its rush to "deliver spaceship" broke some existing programs. In fact I would even say that WG21 is not effectively delivering on the needs of the greater C++ community. Not for lack of effort, but because the bureaucratic structure invites politics and creates perverse incentives. C++11 was a huge success thanks to Boost, and represents an outlier in terms of the quality of the Committee's output. What we are seeing today is a reduction of output, and a reversion to the mean. This is not a problem specific to WG21, it is a problem for any large organization. As Samo Burja explains in this blog post, functional institutions are the exception not the norm: https://samoburja.com/functional-institutions-are-the-exception/ Boost should not follow. Instead, we should lead. Thanks