Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-14 20:06:44
On 14 June 2013 19:20, Lars Viklund wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:04:36PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 14 June 2013 18:53, Lars Viklund wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:21:38PM +0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The existing code base being prepared for entry into Boost is pure C++11, or
>> >> at least as much C++11 as is provided by the Nov 2012 CTP experimental MSVC
>> >> compiler and therefore easily supported by GCC 4.6 and clang 3.x.
>> >
>> > I hope that you do realize that the Nov12 CTP does not come with a
>> > go-live license, nor is recommended for any human consumption.
>> >
>> > It seems quite odd to me to spend significant GSoC resources on making a
>> > library that targets only two compilers,
>>
>> You make it sound like C++11 is going to disappear or be a temporary fad.
>> Other compilers will catch up at some point.
>>
>> > and assumedly a rather narrow
>> > set of OSes.
>>
>> Is there any compiler that targets more OSes than GCC?
>
> Even if GCC can target an OS, it's not always as suitable as the native
> compiler on the OS, with the native runtime. There are also several
> alternative C++03 compilers that serve special purposes. Should projects
> needing their other features (excellent auto-vectorisation, etc.) have
> to completely drop Boost due to an urge to constantly target the
> bleeding edge.
Those projects cannot possibly be using AFIO, since it isn't in Boost
yet, so why would they have to "completely drop Boost" if a library
they don't use is C++11-only? Stop being melodramatic.
> I used to see Boost as an empowering library, enhancing and evening out
> the playing field among the compilers out there.
I don't see it as evening out differences at all. Even the name
suggests it's meant to offer *more* than the standard library, not
poorer functionality due to being stuck in the last decade.