No offense intended to your perspective, but I do find it a little amusing that C++23, which was generally considered a disappointingly small update due to COVID complications, was the breaking point in complexity.
My understanding is that Scala 3 came with many large breaking changes that made adoption difficult. I at least hadn't heard users complain that new features weren't desired.
Definitely not. Boost is specifically prohibited in many companies. I haven’t run into Boost in a source tree in over a decade.
There are many reasons for this. Boost has uneven quality. Many of the best bits end up in the C++ standard. New versions sometimes introduce breaking changes. Recent versions of C++ added core language features that make many Boost library features trivial and clean to implement yourself. Boost can make builds much less pleasant. Boost comes with a lot of baggage.
Boost was a solution for when template metaprogramming in C++ was an arcane unmaintainable mess. Since then, C++ has intentionally made massive strides toward supporting template metaprogramming as a core feature that is qualitatively cleaner and more maintainable. You don’t really need a library like Boost to abstract those capabilities for the sake of your sanity.
If you are using C++20 or later, there isn’t much of a justification for using Boost these days.
Not at all. Most of the good parts of boost are now part of the standard library, and the rest of boost that is of high quality have stand-alone implementations, like ASIO, pybind11 (which was heavily influenced by Boost.python), etc...
A lot of the new stuff that gets added into boost these days is basically junk that people contribute because they want some kind of resume padding but that very few people actually use. Often times people just dump their library into boost and then never bother to maintain it thereafter.
It's not merely a matter of detainment or deportation. Racial minorities, not just immigrants, face intimidation tactics. These guys are walking into schools, they're walking into social security offices, and courthouses. They stand around menacingly just to scare people. They harass random passerby's on the street, or in the grocery store. You would feel unsafe and stressed if this happened to you, no matter your circumstances.
Even if you're not likely to be deported from a foreign country, you wouldn't want to face frequent gang intimidation tactics, would you? Simply feeling threatened isn't fun, even if nothing truly terrible will happen to you (not to speak of the real risk in being detained regardless).
This feels like a false dichotomy to me, and if anything, it might invert cause and effect. Europeans pillaged most of the countries that you're contrasting to, and under intense economic pressure, traditional values (especially misogynistic ones) usually emerge as a coping mechanism. Such as child marriage. Liberties are typically the result of relaxed economic conditions, like what Europe achieved after plundering the textiles of South Asia. As economic conditions worsen, we now see conservativism rising in the west.
Europe used to be a lot like other places a millennia ago (I typo'd century above): low-trust, dominated by extended kinship networks, different marriage patterns, etc. The transformation largely happened between the years 300-1500, before colonialism existed. The Church was responsible for much of this transformation. I guess you think Europe just robbed the world and suddenly they had liberal democracies?
reply