Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 18:24:21
I guess thats where we agree to disagree. As I've pissed all you c++
graphics programmers off, I dont want to say anymore on this thread
Email me privately if you want my views.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 05:43 PM, Tom Brinkman wrote:
>>>> The C part in graphics/HPC programming is the equivalent of the "inline
>>>> Assembler" of earlier days.
>> Here is were we probably disagree. "C' coding is always going to be
>> important in graphics programming. Its always going to be around in
>> the backround. Most will want to wrap it, though, as they always
>> In the future, hardware acceleration will be even more of an issue
>> than it has been, so stay tuned. Lots of cool stuff coming your way
>> very soon.
>> IMO, you should just play it loose between the two worlds, "C" and
>> "C++". Pick and choose what works for you, but keep in eye on what
>> the "C" guys are up to because they are doing some cool as shit.
> I fully agree on the "pick and choose what works" approach. However, there
> is absolutely nothing special about C. Yes, it gives access to "raw
> pointers". But so what ? Fortran is catching up on support for parallelism.
> And other languages (including interpreters, runtimes) get built-in support
> for multi-core architectures, too. Not to speak of all the research
> languages that are being invented specifically to address the needs of the
> HPC community (or tomorrow's mainstream computers). There really isn't
> anything in C that deserves any special attention.
> ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk