_slyo

> The cult of generic metaprogramming was always a pain to deal with. In part, the new language features can help reduce over reliance on templates. As a community we must push for features that can get is out of this situation, like a sane modules system.

The "cult of generic metaprogramming" is the very community pushing for those features.

> literally publicly shame the authors of too "meta" template heavy libraries.

This is pretty harsh. I agree that metaprogramming abuse in application code is a problem, and it's not something that should be advocated. However, there is a big difference between promoting C++ literacy and saying "everyone should commit metaprogramming code at work". The blame for metaprogramming abuse lies _squarely_ on engineering teams with poor quality control, not on library developers who like to push the language to its limits in their free time.

Everyone knows that C++ is a language of footguns. Metaprogramming is one of them; Boost is a mixed bag. Every successful C++ engineering team enforces coding standards to address this.

"the powers that be"

Using libClang and gdb: http://jefftrull.github.io/c++/gdb/python/libclang/llvm/2018...

Boost contains over 120 libraries and counting, with over 70 authors and maintainers. There are many parts of Boost that I will never use (e.g. most of the pre c++11 libs), but the pros of having it available when you need it far outweigh the cons.

If a particular library is costing you more in compile time than it's worth in convenience, just rm -rf it from your Boost install -- better yet, write a script to prepend `static_assert(false, "this header is banned by decree of vvanders");` to the top of the banned headers.

There's plenty in Boost to love -- don't let a few rotten apples spoil the bunch.

Full disclosure: I'm a Boost developer

I prefer this:

T::asdfasdf();

Although I might start using yours.