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 23:31:08

I'm tired of this thread too.  But dear Johathan, you have completely
missed my point.  All I'm saying is that in the real world, most
projects are mixed C/C++ and that the needs of both communities need
to be addressed if boost is going to remain relevent.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Franklin
<franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> opinion.
>
> Let's get back to improving boost!
> :-)
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>