Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 23:09:47
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ... Still just plain "C" though. I
> know this because I've worked with the IPP guys.
> vsiplplusplus appears to be just like every other C++ graphics
> library, in that it just puts a pretty C++ face onto an otherwise ugly
> C graphics library.
I have no comment about any of the specific libraries in question.
However, your argument is basically akin to asserting that the linux
kernel is just a pretty C face onto an otherwise ugly assembler
library, because we all know that the core parts are written in
hand-optimised assembler, because compiled C just doesn't cut it.
It is also troll bait, that belongs in /dev/null.
The C++ wrappers to graphics libraries exist because most OS
primitives and device drivers are in C, and the primitive libraries
happen to be unusable for anything large scale. But that's an
Let's get back to improving boost!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk