Re: py_cpp

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-17 09:24:44

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Moore, Paul" <paul.moore_at_u...> wrote:
> From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_m...]
> I see a fundamental distinction between graph and regex, and py_cpp 
and
> (say) threading or GUI libraries. It is that the former two have no
> dependency on the platform (OS, other language libraries, etc etc). 
Whether
> this pushes graph and regex down a layer, or adds a fourth layer, I 
don't
> know.

I understand the sentiment, and it's consistent with historical 
precedent, but IMHO threads are not something that any language can 
ignore any more.  This includes C++.  Concurrent processing has 
become mandatory for a very large range of problems, and desirable 
for an even larger range.  Only on embedded systems would inclusion 
of thread primitives be considered "too much"... and for them even 
iostreams goes to far.

Lack of standardized language support for threads has lead to a huge 
base of code being unportable and even unstable.  Advances in thread 
safety is hindered by each researcher "speaking a different 
language", even if they are programming using the same language, such 
as C++.

From what I've heard from members of the C++ comittee, they are more 
than open to inclusion of threads in the C++ language, but are 
concerned with portability, efficiency and safety.  So I don't think 
that threads fall in a category of "beyond the scope of future C++ 
standards", and strongly feel that in fact, the C++ language _must_ 
consider the concept if it is to survive as a language.

Bill Kempf