Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 19:40:33

>> To you.  There are many graphics shops that make extensive use of c++
*and* boost.

Not true.  Sure, we use C++ around the edges.  The actual graphics code is
all done in C.  There are no popular C++ graphics libraries.  Sorry.  Its
not possible, graphics libraries require hardware acceleartion.  Sure there
are C++ wrappers around the C libraries that do the acceleration, so you are
loosly correct.  But the actual graphics code is all done in C.

> Because boost only meets the needs of C++ developers, it will continue to
> loose relevance.

>> Seems to be the opposite of reality.

My larger point is we C++ developers, have the unique advantage  of being
able to use C as well.  Why not take advantage of that.  There is alot of
good work being done ine C world.  Check it out.

>> Trolling?

Come on.  Is that what you say when you have a disagreement with someone.
Not fair on your part.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Jonathan Franklin <
franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> > Sorry to say, but as a graphics programer, C++ is practically useless.
>  Its
> > all C.
>
> To you.  There are many graphics shops that make extensive use of c++
> *and* boost.
>
> > Because boost only meets the needs of C++ developers, it will continue to
> > loose relevance.
>
> Seems to be the opposite of reality.
>
> > I'm just saying what people are thinking.
>
> You're just trolling, actually.  I only know 2 C curmudgeons that
> thinks what you have asserted.
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>