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 20:07:28

>> masters of C++ used to be a "typical C developer" a decade or two ago,
no?

Fair statement.  Agreed.

>> You do not think they are?

In my experience, developers like your self, who started in C, are much
better developers, than those of us that that started in C++.  You have much
better perspectives and a more balanced approch to interface design.  So
yes, I agree with your larger point.

>> Repeating the request of many others: can you provide an example?

I'll try later.

>> What kind of graphics programming do you do, if I may ask?

Movies.  Also wrote a popular charting library.

>> Would you argue the same points for a D-specific library?

I see your point.

>> I believe you, with the tacit assumption that you mean "you" by your use
of "people."

Sorry, yes, thats what I meant.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM, David Bergman <
David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Tom Brinkman wrote:
>
> > Those of us that started out learning C++ before ever learning C, have
> had
> > to do lots of backfilling.
>
> I assume too much from my own experience, as do you. The truth is probably
> found in between. I *think* it is safe to say that most (self-proclaimed is
> sufficient for now...) masters of C++ used to be a "typical C developer" a
> decade or two ago, no?
>
> > By learning C, what I mean is getting really good at pointer
> manipulations
> > and managing memory yourself.
>
> I assumed most intermediate C++ developers (and above) were very familiar
> with stacks (and stack frames) and (most common implementations of) heaps.
> You do not think they are? I am not talking but people who have developed in
> VB for over six years and then suddenly, after having used VB.NET for
> almost two years, get dragged into an MFC project, since they "know GUI
> programming" :-)
>
> > C++ encourages all sorts of programming practices that I wish I never
> > learned and have never been very useful to me as a programmer.
>
> Repeating the request of many others: can you provide an example?
>
> > Sorry to say, but as a graphics programer, C++ is practically useless.
>  Its
> > all C.
>
> Ah, I had no idea that it had become that bad. I used to be a graphics
> programmer (you know, building my own 3D and physics engines, using lots of
> other game and 3D engines) in the good old days, when men had hair on their
> knuckles, and it was actually quite a lot of C++. What kind of graphics
> programming do you do, if I may ask?
>
> > However, I'm originally a C++ developer, and i'm still a boost/C++
> > supporter.
>
> Yes, you are. What strikes me as confusing is that you use MPL regularly
> yet get a bit frustrated over too many (and probably too deep...) templates.
> A person who uses MPL regularly surely must appreciate the beauty of Boost
> (and of C++) relative the most common C libraries? APR, NSPR, all those
> parameters and "foo_t *another_struct" everywhere...
>
> > For Boost to remain relevent, it needs to reflect the reality of modern
> > development.  That is most projects are mixed C/C++ projects.   The needs
> of
> > both communities need to be met.
> >
> > Because boost only meets the needs of C++ developers, it will continue to
> > loose relevance.
>
> Boost is a C++ library framework. That is true. It has already lost its
> relevance among Rubyists. Yes, I know that "C" has a special status among
> "native developers." Of course. It is the lingua franca for what I
> previously called 'glue' between components. The mere fact that C++ has its
> roots in C should not make it less of a distinct and autonomous language
> than, say, D, which also makes use of a lot of C libraries. Would you argue
> the same points for a D-specific library?
>
> > I'm just saying what people are thinking.
>
> I believe you, with the tacit assumption that you mean "you" by your use of
> "people."
>
> /David
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:03 PM, David Bergman <
> > David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> Sometimes it feels like Linus has a lot of aliases on these lists ;-)
> >>
> >> I especially liked the - partly retracted, admittedly - statement that
> C++
> >> developers have a lot to learn from the typical C developer, but
> probably
> >> not the other way around. Especially in the light of the typical C++
> >> developer often having been a typical C developer 7 years earlier. And
> most
> >> master C++ developers having been typical C developers 14-22 years ago.
> >>
> >> The only point with which I agree is those ugly macros. Yes, I know why
> we
> >> need them, but they are still ugly. BUT, PP is a splendid engineering
> effort
> >> (in retrofitting the C++ preprocessor for tasks it was not meant to
> handle.)
> >>
> >> Boost is the only set of libraries in a "conventional" language that do
> as
> >> I think, which is why it is good :-)
> >>
> >> /David
> >>
> >> On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tom Brinkman <
> reportbase2007_at_[hidden]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> In any event, my point is that c++ exception handeling should be
> >> optional.
> >>>> Boost libraries need to be updated to reflect this.
> >>>
> >>> Look at the design of C++ constructors: the postcondition of a
> >>> constructor is that the object instance is initialized successfully.
> >>> Had Stroustrup listened to people arguing about "optional" exception
> >>> handling, the C++ constructors would have been useless because they
> >>> wouldn't have that postcondition.
> >>>
> >>> It is the same with any other use of exceptions. Make them optional,
> >>> and you throw away the *only* reason to use them in the first place:
> >>> to enforce postconditions.
> >>>
> >>> Emil Dotchevski
> >>> Reverge Studios, Inc.
> >>> http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> >> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> >> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>