Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 11:26:02

On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
>> 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
>> boost::killmenow.
>
> 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.

Actually, there is a problem there. Both w.r.t. the (expressed and  
implicit) goals of Boost and...

> No problem there, which boost library isn't?

... as I showed, very few are. In fact, there is only one library that  
is domain-specific outside the domain of Scientific Computing, and  
that is GIL.

> 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, threads)...
> 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.

Nope, but it is definitely an outcast, and, as I said, I would not  
encourage anyone today to push for similar library, say Boost.Ruby...

> 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".

Terrific idea.

/David