What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#2I am little sceptical and also curious about the Graphics library. Is this meant as a building block for more advanced graphics? Or do you still need to use things like DirectX if you need speed and features?
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#3Go in the C++ STL! Now that would be a headline!
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#4This makes interesting reading, as I've been following C++ graphics proposals for a while, and they are one of the inspirations behind piet. I hope for piet to have a role in the Rust ecosystem similar to what Titus envisions - it's certainly not a standard, but hopefully will be the tool people reach for, much like serde is for serialization.
Of course, if I fail, the negative consequences are minor, people just won't use it. By contrast, having bad stuff in a standard library lasts almost forever.
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#5Sounds like he’s recommending the Rust approach. Seems reasonable.
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#6I completely agree with this article, it is very well written and makes total sense. Managing dependencies is SO much more important and allows code to move quickly while existing legacy code sticks with what worked at the time it was written. There are tons of solutions out there for dependency management for C++ and a graphics library would be much better as a separate package that can be versioned, improved, deprecated and ignored as required.
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#7Coming from any language with a package manager to C or C++ is like a trip back to the dark ages. Sometimes homogeniety is much much better than flexibility. I too prefer a slimmer std lib with a sane package manager over batteries included (and kitchen sink, and now outdated gfx api). You might get shit like leftPad.js, but you'll also get a very very vibrant ecosystem.
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#8Why does string need/deserve to be in the standard? Doesn't the existence of cord cast doubt on thst?
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#9Coming from any language with a package manager to C or C++ is like a trip back to the dark ages. Sometimes homogeniety is much much better than flexibility. I too prefer a slimmer std lib with a sane package manager over batteries included (and kitchen sink, and now outdated gfx api). You might get shit like leftPad.js, but you'll also get a very very vibrant ecosystem.
Couldn't agree more about package managers.
I just went back to C and have spent too many hours trying to get small libraries to build and link properly. I'm pulling my hair out.
Re: What should go into the C++ standard library (2018)
#10Coming from any language with a package manager to C or C++ is like a trip back to the dark ages. Sometimes homogeniety is much much better than flexibility. I too prefer a slimmer std lib with a sane package manager over batteries included (and kitchen sink, and now outdated gfx api). You might get shit like leftPad.js, but you'll also get a very very vibrant ecosystem.
You also inherit an entire chain of trust over code you yourself didn't write nor did anyone actually validate. The issue with leftpad.js wasn't that it was stupid, it was that it was dangerous.