dk2 at January 21st, 2014 04:41 — #1
The proposal is basically to include the Cairo library as part of the C++ Standard. What's everyone's vote on this?
stainless at January 21st, 2014 05:56 — #2
Hell hell no
Worse idea since someone said "hey that Hitler bloke, he's kinda charismatic. How about we make him leader"
gasto at January 21st, 2014 09:21 — #3
It is random to support domain specific libraries in a language standard.
thenut at January 21st, 2014 10:57 — #4
Guaranteed won't pass. It would start a chain reaction where next follows 3D, then audio, then physics, etc. All of those APIs could become standards too, but one quick look at history will show you that people are so different, can never agree on anything, and don't like a single solution. And a standard isn't a standard unless people adhere to it. I doubt Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google & co will be willing to sink mega dollars into implementing that standard when they already have their own designs and technologies.
In principle though, C++ is a language and should remain that way. Improve the language and its syntax, let the community produce substance with it. APIs improve over time, become easier, more flexible, more innovative, more up-to-date. You can't do that with a standard. STL vs Java and .NET BCL is a fine example of API evolution.
dzada at January 21st, 2014 16:17 — #5
1.@dk Just to mention, they do not want to include Cairo in the standard at all. If you read the proposal they want a simple 2D graphics interface in the standard and explained why not starting from a c++ lib, and why cairo was an interesting starting point.
2.@TheNut One of the writter (H Sutter) is in charge of c++ devs at microsoft and explains how a 2D interface could be standardized and be based on Direct2D behind.
3.@gasto this is not about language standard but standard library. stdio is as much domain specific as 2D could be. you don't have to link it, but if you do, it could be nice to have a well designed interface that is STL compliant, you could maybe change your runtime if you want. Anyway a lot of company are currently reimplementing all this for tablets and PC portability by using openGL primitives so it sould not be bad to consider something that everyone does and that is pretty basic.
fireside at January 22nd, 2014 00:32 — #6
I think it goes counter to what c++ is all about. It's always stayed as just a language, even if you count STL. Languages like Java that get into things like that have really gotten bogged down and become specialized.
vilem_otte at January 22nd, 2014 21:53 — #7
No, just no - it's already too huge in my opinion. I like simple standards, not overcomplicated.