On 12 May 2025 21:58, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost wrote:

As all of you have probably already found out by now, boost.org <http:// boost.org> is now hosting the long anticipated new website! This has been a lot of work by a lot of people, and we at the FSC are so happy that the project has finally seen the light and would like to say big thanks to everybody involved. The new website is probably the most visible result of the new Fiscal Sponsorship Model approved by the community in September 2024.

Please take a moment to review the site and provide your feedback, either here or by filling an issue at

https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues <https://github.com/ boostorg/website-v2/issues>

Looking forward to upcoming developments in the Boost Project.

Alas, it completely ruined library docs. https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/1772

I will begin by stating that I truly appreciate that work is being done on boost and its documentation. The current website is not ready for publishing, though. Andrey Semashev already mentioned that documentation does not work, but a lot of information is also wrong or incomplete. Examples: If you take a look at news->news, the latest entry is from april 2024. If you look at libraries, describe is marked as C++03. The front page had a link to a video about mp11. It can not be found on the videos-page with only four(!) videos and it can not be found on the documentation page for the library, On the videos tab, te first video, Boost LEAF in embedded systems, turns out to be a one-minute presentation of Khalil Estell and to top it up, his named is spelled incorrectly. This was found spending just ten minutes browsing. For the usability - and this is subjective of course - I am also disappointed. Using a lot of screen estate for not so much information is a no go. What are all those cute cartoons with animals doing in boost site? I also do not understand why libraries like mpl have such a prominent place. Is it not outdated and not to be used unless you are forced to use an antique compiler? /Peter On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:58 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

As all of you have probably already found out by now, boost.org <http://boost.org> is now hosting the long anticipated new website! This has been a lot of work by a lot of people, and we at the FSC are so happy that the project has finally seen the light and would like to say big thanks to everybody involved. The new website is probably the most visible result of the new Fiscal Sponsorship Model approved by the community in September 2024.

Please take a moment to review the site and provide your feedback, either here or by filling an issue at

https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues <https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues>

Looking forward to upcoming developments in the Boost Project.

Joaquin M Lopez Munoz Boost Fiscal Sponsorship Committee

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Hi I agree with what Peter Koch Larsen wrote, but few more comments from my side: On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:58 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

Please take a moment to review the site and provide your feedback

1. I remember vaguely that Boost requires C++11 minimum, but in compilers tested C++03 compilers are still listed. If this is not intentional maybe remove them. 2. Library spotlight currently spotlights Config. I presume spotlight has a random rotation, I believe it needs some filtering. Not saying that Config is not valuable, just that for average visitor of boost website it is not an interesting library. Same for Array, Atomic, Enable If, Foreach ... I presume there might be some disagreements on what libraries should be spotlighted, but I presume we can get a broad agreement on few libraries that definitely do not need to be Spotlighted since they are for Boost devs only or have been added to std:: or even core language.