does it mean we will have to include more un-needed libraries?
That is probably implementation dependant. If it is separate library then you don't have to link it, if you don't use it. If it's built into standard C++ library, it doesn't matter anyway (won't make your program bigger).
Originally Posted by Illasera
And what exactly does it have ANYTHING TO DO with the c++ programming language?
Well, C++ programers might want to draw something on screen. Having standard drawing is nice for portability.
It would be really nice to have drawing standardized. That could be a killer feature for me (I prefer C).
I also think it was mistake not to include POSIX into ISO C.
POSIX is an operating system specification - and specifically one for Unix, hence the X in the acronym - C is a language and associated runtime, as such it shall be os agnostic...
if you make posix a part of the language standard you mandate for things such as (for instance) signals, or fork/exec that other perfectly working OS's dont have because they're inherent to the unix process model - or are you advocating every Os to be a clone of unix?
Of course to have drawing standardized seems like a nice thing , BUT wouldn't fit with the intended scope and goal of C and C++ as languages (to remain as lean as possible so as to allow for anything upper level to be built and used upon it without tying itself to anything in particular)
OTOH, why a somewhat "arbitrary" library like Cairo (worse, a C++ified (sic) version of it)?
why not, for instance, AGG (which is C++ and is in widespread use in non - unix systems too)?
or OpenVG, which is at least backed by an industry consortium of sorts and, unlike cairo, has hw-accelerated implementations in existence?