From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-06 20:45:10
Darren Garvey wrote:
> I entered a proposal in for the Summer of Code for what is essentially a CGI
> library. The lack of comments on that have me wondering if Boost actually
> wants a library like this and I realised I haven't even asked yet. This
> isn't about my proposal whatsoever (honest); I just couldn't answer a few
> questions myself so I'm asking here:
> 1) Boost is essentially about collecting libraries for possible inclusion in
> a standard. Is CGI seen as too transient? In other words, do boosters feel
> such a library belongs somewhere, just not in any standard?
Not all Boost libraries are appropriate for standardization -- that doesn't
mean they wouldn't be useful. A CGI library probably doesn't belong in the
> 2) Given how (controversial, but) 'simple' such a library is to construct,
> is there a reason I can't find any mention of a CGI library ever being
> submitted for review? Have people tried and been shot down earlier?
My take is that people have been busy with other things. We only recently,
finally, finally, got asio for networking. So that might be part of it. I
have a hacked version of a cgi library, but haven't had time to really finish
or submit it. For small apps it's just easier to write a script at the moment.
> 3) Do people feel that C++ 'just isn't any good for CGI'? I'd disagree, but
> then of course I would. :)
Everyone that thinks C++ isn't good for CGI or Web programming more generally,
needs only to go to google.com to see C++ in action. BTW, they recently open
sourced their c++ templating engine
(http://code.google.com/p/google-ctemplate/) used to create various sites.
Scripting languages have gotten most of the attention in web programming
because there easier for small applications and they have a fully complete
'software stack' for development of web-apps in an easy bundle. I believe C++
can and should have the same thing. That's one of the reasons why 'cgi' was
one of the libraries on my 'C++ library roadmap' that I put together 3 years
ago for a Boost workshop...
These are libraries that from my perspective should be in C++.
> If it's simply down to lack of submissions for pre/review, then that's fair
> enough (and sorry for the noise). I'd just hate to think I'm building a
> balcony on a sunken ship.
Please keep going.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk