BOOST C++ Framework [PSARC/2008/752]

[Stefan Teleman]

Rainer Orth wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
> 
>> If I understand correctly, Stefan's response is that minor/micro 
>> versions are required because there *can* be incompatible changes in the 
>> Boost libraries from upstream.  That is to say, Boost doesn't guarantee 
>> binary compatibility, but instead requires developers to code to a 
>> specific release.
> 
> That's what I now found in the BOOST FAQ at
> 
> 	http://www.boost.org/users/faq.html
> 
> (How can the Boost libraries be used successfully for important projects?)
> Some postings on their mailing lists indicate that their track record for
> compatiblity isn't particularly good, even silently breaking compatibility
> in micro releases (which seem to be rare, though).
> 
>> While this may seem unfortunate, its the way Boost developers work, I 
>> guess.  Its not particularly worse, IMO, than the other problems 
>> inherent in using C++ when you care about  compatibility.
> 
> Seems so, yes.

This happens mainly because BOOST is, first and foremost, a language research 
project. The intent is to discover and provide implementations for new language 
idioms and techniques, and as such, maintaining compatibility takes a second 
seat. The consistency and compatibility aspect is addressed by including BOOST 
components in the Language Standard, at which point these components acquire the 
expected Interface Stability Classification commitment.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM