Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 15:01:13
On 10/23/18 3:01 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 8:27 PM
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm arguing that the C++ standardization process is not useful for most
>> C++ libraries.
>
> True, but I don't see the problem. Most libraries never aspire to get
> standardized anyway.
I think there are 70 proposals to be considered in San Diego.
>
>> The committee can't handle it. This is pretty much a
>> demonstrable fact as far as I'm concerned. (I realize that people will
>> disagree with this premise). So this leaves a vacuum which
>> organizations such a Boost can/should fill.
>
> Why does boost have to define its role in terms of its relation to the
> standardization process?
I think that was part of original motivation for the founding of Boost.
And I do see Boost as providing those things that C++ needs but
shouldn't be part of the standard. So I do see role of Boost as being
defined in relation to the standard.
> Can't it just be a collection of well designed
> and well maintained open source libraries? Actually I'd like to see much
> more higher level libraries such as Beast in boost
Right! +1
> than the next compiler
> torture test
(of course that would require someone writing, submitting and
> maintaining such libraries).
>
> Not sure if we have a violent agreement here without recognizing it.
I think we mostly agree. But since we're both part of Boost, we can't
openly acknowledge this.
Robert Ramey