How C++17 Benefits from Boost Libraries
fluentcpp.com
fluentcpp.com
Boost runs a lot quicker than a standards body, but the proposal isn't quite as good. I personally like boost's "quicker but worse" methodology, but I can see the value that the official c++ standards committee provides. E.g. the atomics interfaces were previewed by boost, but to be done well really did require the more painful standards process.
In any case, I see the status quo as mostly healthy. It might be better if boost was to be officially encouraged, but most serious users of c++ understands that boost is useful without official endorsement.
Fortunately the Standard containers do better. But the Standard doesn't say they must.
In the sense that the standards are very high, and seem to require at least 3 things: expert level understanding of C++, of a number of boost idioms, and of the particular domain/niche that your library solves.