Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[CN <cn...@fa...>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 06:10 AM, ano...@op... wrote:
> Hi Artyom,
> 
> I read your position about migration to C++11
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcms/mailman/message/35292236/
> 
> BTW, I have proposal to preparing release CppCMS 2.0 with breaking API.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> 1. We can migrate to C++11 (or C++14).
> 
> 2. We can drop some booster classes, and using pure STL and new language
> features. For example, migrate to std::thread, smart-pointers, etc.
> 
> 3. We can clean-up code, make it more robust, cleaner and faster (rvo,
> constexpr, lambdas, syntax sugar).
> 
> 4. We can completely drop old and deprecated stuff.
> 
> 5. We can continue support 1.x for those who need C++0x.
> 
> [*we - you and community]
> 
> 
> Of course, it will little bit harder because of needing to backport
> bugfixes and some features into 1.x.
> 
> If you don't want do it, then please answer - how many years you want to
> wait before CppCMS will migrate to C++11?
> 
> Regards.
> 

I prefer to not placing too much weight on Artyom - the sole developer
of this marvelous project.  I asked myself from time to time this
question: "How could it be possible that a single man can complete a
full functioning framework in large scale of so high quality like
CppCMS?"

However, I am not saying that I am absolutely comfortable with the
quality of CppCMS documentation.  In fact, I sometimes spent hours
reading the documentation struggling to understand the usage of only one
class method, but in the end I had to guess and test it in order to get
an idea of its functionality.  Therefore, if I can vote, I will place
improving the quality of documentation as the first entry in the to-do
list.

My this comment then leads to one question: Why didn't I improve the
documentation for the benefit of other users in this community after I
finally understood the meanings of that part of documentation? Here are
my "reasons":

- English is not my native speaking language.
- I do not have sufficient confidence on my technical knowledge on
CppCMS to *correctly* improve its documentation.  I can not rule out the
possibility of misunderstanding CppCMS components.
- I have been too busy to feed back to this community.

My these reasons, "excuses" in another word,  in fact are where the
problems really lie -  If every CppCMS community member has his/her own
reasons for which he/she is unable to contribute to this project, it is
not good.  Lacking community contributor, the pace of project
improvement being slow is one obvious outcome.  Worse is the biggest
threat of this project's future - an one-man project.

I do not know why we have only one developer.  I can only guess the
possible cause - the adoption of this project has not been large due to
the following possible "trends":

1. Many web programmers flood to OS tied applications for portable
devices.
2. Many web programmers embrace NODE JS.
3. The learning curve of C++ is too steep for many web programmers.

I have no idea what I can do about these "trends".  Perhaps the best we
community members can do at this moment is making your own CppCMS
applications great - so great that they make your businesses so
successful that your organizations grow and expand and therefore begin
to hire top end programmers to work exclusively on CppCMS framework. 
When this comes true, it means that the CppCMS adoption grows.  Once the
adoption grows, real good programmers will start to contribute to CppCMS
project. Most important of all, do not let this bright future happen too
late.

Please pardon me if you do not agree with my view points! After all,
this is the 2 cents all I have at this moment.

Best Regards,
CN

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow