From: Hendrik Schober (SpamTrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 03:46:59
David Bergman <davidb_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > Oliver Kullmann <O.Kullmann_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> > > But for these "millions of C++ users" Boost is not the right choice.
> >
> > It should be.
>
> Oliver was talking about those millions of C++ users that "see no benefit in
> smart pointers", "see MPL as black art" etc. [...]
I would like to see boost especially appeal
to those.
> [...] I want Boost to remain a choice for C++ experts.
IIRC, boost was founded as a means to play
with what should go into the next std lib.
IMHO the std lib isn't only for experts, but
for everyone. So should be boost.
> Most of those "millions of C++ users" that Oliver is refering to are
> actually quite junior C developers who have been forced to use some C++
> keywords and OOP in order to exploit MFC instead of raw Win32 programming.
> And those developers already have MFC and ATL, and would probably only use
> 'shared_ptr' from Boost.
Good start! That's how I sneaked boost in here:
I demonstrated a bug in the home-grown smart
pointer and pleaded for using boost's.
> What I am saying is that it would not be unreasonable to expect the targeted
> developers to actually type 'bjam', and perhaps even set the proper
> environment variables.
If they are targeted, and it's unreasonable
to expect this from them, it should be made
easier.
> I do not think we have to flirt with the masses - developers that would not
> use the facilities found in Boost anyway - in order to position it better
> for incorporation into future C++ standardizations.
I very strongly disagree.
> /David Bergman
Schobi
-- SpamTrap_at_[hidden] is never read I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org "Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving" Terry Pratchett