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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk