Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 110

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,415

    Default Cairo Proposed To Become Part Of ISO C++

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

    The C++ standards committee is looking at adopting a Cairo C++ interface as part of a future revision to the ISO C++ standard to provide 2D drawing...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU1OTE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    I also think it was mistake not to include POSIX into ISO C.
    I think so too, but it appears that, many years later, they are finally catching up (see C11 threads).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Sadly C11 threads are optional (probably Cairo will be optional too) and there are many more things in POSIX.

  5. #5

    Default

    I assume GUI will also be part of it (window creation etc.)?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    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.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    I assume GUI will also be part of it (window creation etc.)?
    Cairo is only 2D drawing library (not GUI).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Illasera View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Illasera View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Well, C++ programers might want to draw something on screen. Having standard drawing is nice for portability.
    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.
    Last edited by Illasera; 01-03-2014 at 07:45 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    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?
    Last edited by silix; 01-03-2014 at 07:47 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
  •