Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 08:36:32
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 10:07, Miguel Ojeda via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:27 PM Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 10/22/18 10:13 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
> > > Interesting point to think about: If you look at how standardization of
> > > communication protocols work (e.g. USB, Wifi PCI), they don't
> > > established practice at all.
> > True, but their not standardizing any practice. They don't approve code
> > or APIS etc. The leave that to someone else. They stick to the
> > legitimate goals of standardization.
> > I believe that one of the original goals is to "standardize existing
> > practice" and perhaps they shouldn't do that. One thing that they do
> > which no one else can do is specify language syntax and semantics.
> > Expanding too far beyond this essential function can compromise the
> > successful accomplishment of that very function.
> The problem is defining that "too far beyond this essential function".
> Is it unique_ptr? Ranges? 2D graphics?
Well, in respect of the 2D Graphics proposal(s), I don't get it. There is a
perfectly good (C++, cross platform, mature) 2D Framework [SFML] available,
which seems to have been discarded from the block. No, instead we're gonna
get [probably] some poofed up C thingy, which does not even allow you to
write that little 2D Game [because we need a mouse, a window, touch, sound
(formats), image formats, etc etc]. I agree with RR, though, these things
should not be part of C++, I don't even think the Network TS should be in
the standard, it's highly specialized stuff, with heaps of pitfalls [most
user posted problems on this list pertain to ASIO [and Beast (no criticism
intended, it's just complicated stuff)].
-- *âIf something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein*
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk