Re: [boost] PCL - Portable C++ Library

Subject: Re: [boost] PCL - Portable C++ Library
From: Martin Desharnais (martin.desharnais_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-10 00:05:46

> Perhaps this would be a good time to start collecting information
> about what kinds of libraries we think the standard needs, who's going
> to write them, and how we're going to get them into the standard. What
> would make your jobs easier?

Hi, I am still a student and not a very experiment C++ developer, but I 
would like to give my two cents about what C++ need to be more 
attractive for the next generation of programmers. I am sory if it is 
naive, but it is how the current situation is seen by starting developpers.

In my country's colleges and universities, C++ is in process to be 
replaced as a teaching and project developement language because there 
is no single place which could provide basic libraries for simple domains.

It is a fact that there exists many out there, but teachers don't want 
to require there students (and computer lab technician) to install a 
plethora of libraries for the different exercises and projects they will 
have to do. And more, the vast majority of our computer labs are equip 
with Windows, but students frequently use Mac OS X and sometime Linux. 
Since C++ is a multiplatformes language, it would be nice for these 
libraries to be multiplatforme and boost have a great reputation for 
that. An other of the major facts is that it needs to be trivial to 
build trivial examples.

One good example of a great needed is an XML parser library. We use it 
when studying web developement, network communication, report production 
and application configurations. The current fact is that it is too easy 
to just say that "it is standard in .Net so let's use C#". Boost is a 
great argument against that because it offers libraries for filesystem, 
networking, multithreading (now in C++11), regex (now in C++11), etc.

We, as students and new C++ developers, would like to have access to a 
simple, but still efficient XML library. More, it would be a good 
addition for TR2 of, perhaps, TR3. Is there a technical reason 
explaining why ther it is not currently include in Boost? I've read a 
fiew times that the DOM implementation, which is currently what we are 
use for, was not integrating well with C++ and could be made simpler. 
That's the good time to search in this direction.

I will finish by saying that the biggest advantage of the boost 
libraries is that they all come together and that is a major argument 
when trying to convinced someone or an organisation that libraries are 
available (event if not in the standard) and that it will not be an 
installation and maintenance nightmare.

PS: My english is probably a little bit strange, I'm a french speaker 
and not very used to exprime myself in this language.

Martin