Date: 2001-03-07 07:09:53
--- In boost_at_y..., "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_c...> wrote:
> Lois Goldthwaite wrote:
> .political_commentary on
> From my perspective, for C++ to move forward we need to stop asking
why we can't
> do something on every platform and start looking at how to provide
> things on as many platforms as possible. The JAVA folks have done
this well and
> JAVA is flourishing as a result. Clearly, they have learned to
> subsets of standard libraries for devices that won't run GUI's, for
> C++ could easily do the same...
I completely disagree. The C++ libraries need to remain small enough
that new iterations can be produced as fast as language ones are.
Also, ISO C++ is theoretically as portable as C (and with Greg
Comeau's help practically), and I see no reason to change that.
What we need if for some people to form a new standards body to come
up with a new standard for, say, a C++ binding of POSIX, that is
easily ported to any platform that supports a C POSIX binding and a
ISO compliant C++ compiler. Ideally, a Win32 port would be possible.
All the realtime POSIX extensions would be designed in from the
start, though not required (especially since I use a realtime OS :)
Perhaps this what a group of the boost people could be doing, rather
than working relatively independently on a hotch potch of reasonably
> .political_commentary off
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk