Re: Why do you deserve a better IO library
rpbg123@yahoo.com (Roland Pibinger) writes:
All have heavily templated interfaces which significantly narrows
their usability for real-world programmers.
Yeah, but Boost is built for real-world C++ programmers, not
programmers in other languages that don't have templates.
You know better, of course. Boost is primarily made from and for
people who like to _experiment_ with templates, the Turing complete
sublanguage within C++.
Aside from being incredibly presumptuous, you're just plain incorrect.
The majority of Boost libraries are built for, and used by, people
trying to get real work done. The few Boost libraries that address
the "turing complete template sublanguage" are built for library
writers, so they can more effectively build libraries for people
trying to get real work done.
I don't mind that Boosters do what they like most. But I object to
the claim that Boost programming is a viable solution for the 97%
rest of real-world C++ programmers.
Nobody made any numerical claims. http://tinyurl.com/ehxoa shows a
list of serious companies that can't afford to dicker
around with experimental software. They're all using Boost.
(http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/who_s_using_boost_/shrink.html)
The success of Java and scipting languages in recent years was
primarily based on convenient and accessible libraries. I don't see
why C++ should miss the train in this respect.
We at Boost agree, which is why we're doing what we do.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]