Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
O_o

You also have "Boost". The thing is, "Boost" is a great library; except that it totally isn't a library. Many dozens of different groups have worked on different libraries using the same or similar standard set by early "STL" implementations and the standard library as a foundation for moving forward. As "Boost" became a thing, "Boost" grew by absorbing many libraries. (I think recommended libraries to be distributed as part of "Boost" is still open to the public developers site.) "Boost" became massive. The C++ library is already very large, and many people wanted to include most all of "Boost" or similar in the future standard. "Boost" has a permissive license, but some vendors absolutely could not have just shipped "Boost", and even as a library you get the same sort of collision issues as above. Of course, a lost of people didn't want to include but a few scraps from "Boost". How much and where to add was just a ridiculously complex question.

Of course, politics and feature creep is also why the next standard has a shorted development cycle. The core changes in C++11 were contentious for a lot of reasons, but a lot of the core changes in C++14 are simply logical continuation of the C++11 features making them less problematic. You also have a standard committee who is more wary and tired of the political problems which arose due to the long wait so they intend a more rapid cycle simply to put the rubber seal, so to speak, on fixes and extensions as they evolve so that competing implementations have less time to become ingrained.

Soma
I see. I did notice from doing internet searches that a lot of the new classes were concepts from boost. Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Do you think it would still be advantageous to learn boost? If that's not to general a question, I imagine it probably varies on a case by case.