Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 20:07:03
On Jun 8, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:10 PM, David Bergman
> <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:58 PM, David Bergman wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>>> Specifically, what platforms that library runs on is not important.
>>> It is important to the ideal of Boost, in my humble opinion (and
>>> interpretation of the stated goals of Boost.)
>> My response sounded harsh. What I think I meant is what is stopping
>> from creating a Boost-compatible and Boostesque wrapper for
>> DirectX? Why
>> must it be part of the Boost libraries?
> You can ask this question for any Boost library: why should it be
> part of Boost?
Most libraries are integral to Boost, and constitute aspects that
together bring the developer to another level of abstraction and
solution terminology. Boost is not a random set of code happening to
be compilable with C/C++ and somehow having a potentially big
audience. I do not welcome domain-specific or target-specific code
with open arms.
> Presumably the answer is "because many programmers (Boost users) would
> benefit from it."
No. The answer is - or should be - because programmers can benefit
from FOO on any platform and most types of applications, and FOO is in
harmony with the goal of Boost and the existing libraries.
I am not even super-happy about quite specific math libraries entering
Boost now and then - ending up with a bunch of them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk