Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 110

Thread: Cairo Proposed To Become Part Of ISO C++

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Illasera View Post
    does it mean we will have to include more un-needed libraries?

    And what exactly does it have ANYTHING TO DO with the c++ programming language?

    Even as far as STL goes, I am not quite sure that should be there as well.
    especially given that one often writes his own container classes - or anyway uses different ones
    if you use Qt for instance, chances are you're already using qt's own classes rather than the stl ones..

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silix View Post
    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?
    Having POSIX support doesn't turn you automatically in a UNIX. Even Windows have a POSIX subsystem in some versions.

    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)
    I don't know about C, but it's clearly not the scope and goal of C++ to remain as lean as possible. The STL is quite the opposite.

    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?
    I don't know why one and not the other. Maybe the other ones are too complex. Anyway, I think the important bit is that there exist software implementations, as otherwise you are considering standard code something that actually expects a given set of hardware. Are there OpenVG software implementations?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silix View Post
    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?
    Yes, but most other perfectly working OSes's functions can be wrapped to POSIX.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illasera View Post
    Here is the thing, you can say that on ANYTHING, Next thing you know, you will include "boost" as part of the standard.

    For the reason that people may WANT something from it, Does it have anything to do with the language itself or the c++ committee? I am not sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by silix View Post
    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)
    I consider 2D drawing quite low level. But if you consider C as portable ASM, than that is very high level.
    Problem is you can't portably draw anything in C/C++, because system call is needed.
    So in case system call is needed, it should be standardized.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,103

    Default

    Next thing you know, you will include "boost" as part of the standard.
    They have, and are integrating things from boost to the C++ standard.

    The difference is that they do it properly, making it easy to build, and keeping API+ABI compatibility, unlike the boost people who break every version.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Problem is you can't portably draw anything in C/C++, because system call is needed.
    So in case system call is needed, it should be standardized.
    Only if you're actually drawing something to a window on the screen. You can use offscreen rendertargers in memory and be completely OS agnostic (ie. pixman).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Sadly C11 threads are optional (probably Cairo will be optional too) and there are many more things in POSIX.
    I just noticed this too when digging a bit further. Damn, what a shame. This means libraries like Qt, SFML, SDL etc. which already provide thread abstractions will continue to have to be used for a long time to come.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Only if you're actually drawing something to a window on the screen. You can use offscreen rendertargers in memory and be completely OS agnostic (ie. pixman).
    Yes, I am talking about actual drawing.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Yes, I am talking about actual drawing.
    You can do actual drawing to a file, and for that case what Ancurio suggested is perfectly valid.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    You can do actual drawing to a file, and for that case what Ancurio suggested is perfectly valid.
    File is not screen!
    Most people don't have telepathic ability to read files from disk or memory.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    458

    Default

    I see this as a desperate attempt to gain public exposure and help with heavy lifting for Cairo.

    The production of that project has steadily declined for the past year. Meanwhile, a project that uses Cairo [amidst countless], Poppler, is blooming with activity.

    How about Poppler, Inkscape and a few others pitch in and bring Cairo up to meet it's lofty aims, sans illogical adoption into the ISO C++ Specification.
    Last edited by Marc Driftmeyer; 01-03-2014 at 11:15 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •