Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Gevorg Voskanyan (v_gevorg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-07 08:50:10
Christian Schladetsch wrote:
> It is certainly untrue to claim that DirectX is not relevant to C++. I do
> not think, and many others would agree, that OpenGL is a real alternative.
> I have no wish in turning this into a flame war of DX vs GL. Whatever. I
> simply wanted to raise the idea of a boost::directx or
> boost::microsoft::directx namespace, to house common solutions.
> The reality is that DirectX is here, it is supported by manufacturers, it is
> needed by C++ developers, and it will stay here.
The idea to have a proper C++ interface for DirectX sounds a good one indeed, but does it have to be in boost to be widely useful for C++ folks out there? I personally do not see that to be a requirement for what you propose. What about creating a separate open source project and put it on e.g. SourceForge? It could be licensed under the Boost Software License, and have quality standards similar to Boost.
However I do not see something like that as a part of boost itself for the following reasons:
- Wrapping only one proprietary API has no precedents in boost libraries.
- Reasonable portability is a must.
- Libraries are proposed and accepted in boost with eventual standardization in mind. An interface to a specific proprietary API doesn't fit here.
Nevertheless, I do support your initiative to provide a C++-friendly interface for DirectX in general, and hope you continue your work on this subject for the benefit of the whole C++ community.
With Kind Regards,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk