Some interest has been shown by a few People That Matter at OSDC for the idea of cloning a CPAN similar system for C programmers, taking lessons from what worked and didn't work for CPAN.
I'm curious about your feedback on the creation of such a thing.
Re:Skeptical
ChrisDolan on 2007-11-30T04:09:35
I don't know, it seems to me that Boost has made a big impact for one. It's everywhere in the C++ world. Sure, legacy projects have lock in -- that's true in every language -- but not new projects.Re:Skeptical
educated_foo on 2007-11-30T05:31:45
The problem with Boost (and the reason I don't use it) is that to use one Boost library, you almost have to use them all. It's like adding a whole other language: you pay an enormous up-front cost for using a single feature, so it makes sense to avoid Boost unless you have to use many features.Re:Skeptical
ChrisDolan on 2007-11-30T07:43:11
Well, maybe that's because they don't have a CCAN to allow cherry-picking features.:-) Re:Skeptical
chromatic on 2007-11-30T08:02:09
That's a pity, too. From my understanding (as I try to avoid C++ in general), Boost makes the language much more palatable at the expense of violating the principal design principle: you don't pay for what you don't use. (Then again, I always hate writing code to convince the compiler not to do the wrong thing by default, so maybe C++ isn't very good at that rule itself.)
Re:Skeptical
educated_foo on 2007-11-30T10:11:26
Yeah, C++ may not be for you. I really like the language for its "pay only for what you use" and compile-time evaluation (template metaprogramming) features, but there is significant pain required for each.