C++ forum, Was: Re: Why do you deserve a better IO library
Roland Pibinger wrote:
Valentin Samko wrote:
Roland Pibinger wrote:
IMO, the better alternative is not to standardize new libraries for
C++ but to provide (a) forum(s) for people interested in a certain
domain (e.g. IO) and let them create libraries and frameworks which
are discussed with potential users. The results may compete and
overlap (a plurality of approaches instead of one 'Standard') and may
change over time. Users pick what seems most suitable for them.
Such "forums" already exist, one of them is called Boost.
No, not Boost! Boost is focussed on experimental template programming
which is way too narrow for that purpose. I mean something between
'ordinary', unstructured open source programming (probably dozens of
libraries already exist for each domain) and a highly formalized
process like the JCP (Java Community Process).
Probably, you mean there should be a project which supports developing
and publishing of competing C++ projects. Such project might be focused
on the things like
* domain-wide interfaces,
* unified code conventions,
* unified build system,
* unified test framework,
* unified documentation system,
* unified concurrent release management rules,
* etc. -
thus covering the areas where the C++ community is rather weak, because
they are not directly related to the language itself.
Boost provides some solution in some areas, but I agree - boost is not
focused on making them reusable in other competing projects, because of
the boosters' primary task: to develop C++ libraries themselves.
Dreaming further, I wish this activity is established by educational
organizations and supported by commercial organizations, as far as I
see ISO is of no interest to support it.
--
Andrei Polushin
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]