Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Carlos Rafael Giani (e0325834_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 05:47:51
> I have repeatedly stated my belief that it is futile, if not insane, to
> attempt to make a system that uses either DirectX or OpenGL.
> That is the reason that I explicitly suggested boost::directx, rather than
My apologies if you understood this as being targeted against you. I was
strictly commenting joel's remark. No offense.
>> In short, even then we don't even have something useful for boost.
> Perhaps. I only wished to raise the issue and provide some demo code. What
> happens after that is up to the boost community.
Yes, indeed. This is what this thread is about.
As for the actual thread topic, you have a flaw in your logic. Many
people use WinAPI. Should boost include a WinAPI library? Many people
use Qt for their C++ GUIs. Should boost include Qt support? Etc.
Your proposal, while intriguing, is very domain specific. No problem
there, which boost library isn't? However, the domain here is a library
tied to a few platforms (PC, XBox360) instead of language constructs
(lambda, phoenix, fusion), common tasks such as parsing (Xpressive,
Spirit, regex), common functionality (bind, any, signals/signals2,
At first glance, Boost.Python breaks this pattern. However, Python is a
freely available language, and Boost.Python concerns itself with the
*language* Python, not with a specific Python interpreter or similar.
I strongly suggest you do the same as Adobe did (stlab.adobe.com). They
have their own open source libraries. Many of them are very useful. Out
of this codebase, GIL was added to Boost. Perhaps your library yields at
least a subset that can be added to Boost. But for now, "let it grow".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk