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 21:11:23

I'd be curious to know more about what your talking about.  Do you have a
link or something that could illustrate a C++ graphics library that uses
boost style functors and other modern C++ techniques.

I was the review manager of boost::gil so i'm familiar with the best C++
effort yet. However, Gil is designed to be a wrapper around other libraries
graphics libraries, which all to my knowlege have C style interfaces.
However, GIL is just that a wrapper and a very good one at that.  I use it
regulary and have given large presentations about it.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On 03/23/2010 07:54 PM, David Bergman wrote:
>
>>
>> I never understood this idea that some libraries were not possible to
>> build in C++. And, specifically, what graphics hardware acceleration has to
>> do with C++(-specific) constructs. Are there intrinsic inefficiencies of C++
>> constructs (beside one indirection by virtual functions where they are
>> used)? Is it something else? Yes, most low-level API's require a pointer to
>> a memory area in the end, but does that force us to constantly send that raw
>> pointer around?
>>
>>
>
> You are quite right. I'm working myself on a library that uses CUDA for
> GPU-accelerated computation, and we make *heavy* use of C++.
>
> Can we please put that old myth to rest that high-performance code needs to
> be done in C ?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>        Stefan
> --
>
>      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>