Cairo Proposed To Become Part Of ISO C++

[Vim_User]

what makes you think headless servers can't use acceleration ? acceleration has nothing to do with monitor
yes, clueless people shouldn't program in the first place

For sure, show me hardware acceleration on an Amazon EC2 system or a rack full of blades without video hardware or an IBM Power server or ... . Headless server does not at all have to mean: PC hardware without a monitor connected.

[zester]

whoever doesn't understand that standard describes only interface and not implementation, is a complete idiot

WTF are you talking about? A standard described's both dumbshit. Why the fuck do you think we have compliance tests,
that need to be passed in-order to be considered standard compliant.

Maybe I didn't understand your statement, care to refraze it?

[zester]

And regardless Cairo is neither, its not based on a standard interface and its implementation isn't standard compliant. Nvidia
has already demonstrated this you can download the test and check them your self.

The fact that its even a consideration, demonstrates that something is seriously wrong.

[BlackStar]

while you instead proposing to do nothing at all and use iostreams for ui - clearly better, isn't it ?

Indeed. UI libraries do not belong to a language specification, period.

[gigaplex]

For sure, show me hardware acceleration on an Amazon EC2 system or a rack full of blades without video hardware or an IBM Power server or ... . Headless server does not at all have to mean: PC hardware without a monitor connected.

I can show you some headless acceleration hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tesla

[LightBit]

why not win32 instead of posix ? see, how useless your suggestion is

Because, POSIX already is IEEE standard and win32 is controlled and used only by Microsoft.

[s_j_newbury]

Surprisingly to me at least is that openvg has very little to no hardware adoption. The implementations that exist are apparently software.I read about this on the fxos mailing lists FYI.
IOW, it's dead Jim.

Gallium3d has an OpenVG state tracker, and it's supported by pretty much all of the hw drivers AFAIK. Even ilo (i965) has it available:

steve@artifact ~ $ EGL_DRIVER=egl_gallium eglinfo | grep OpenVG
EGL client APIs: OpenGL OpenGL_ES OpenGL_ES2 OpenVG

[curaga]

why not win32 instead of posix ? see, how useless your suggestion is

Because win32 sucks, that's why.

[LightBit]

Because win32 sucks, that's why.

I would also say that, but I wanted to be more objective.

[mrugiero]

WTF are you talking about? A standard described's both dumbshit. Why the fuck do you think we have compliance tests,
that need to be passed in-order to be considered standard compliant.

Maybe I didn't understand your statement, care to refraze it?

He means exactly that. You don't describe the implementation in the standard, but the specification. Part of the specification is what results from a given call. Implementation is HOW you get to that result, and the standard doesn't care about it, as long as it is the expected one.
I don't know Cairo's API, so I can't say if what you said about their Path Implementation is an unfixable problem of how they defined the interface and the specification, or just poor implementation. If it's just the latter, it shouldn't have any problem for inclusion in the standard. If it's inherent to the how the interface is designed, then you have a point.

And regardless Cairo is neither, its not based on a standard interface and its implementation isn't standard compliant. Nvidia
has already demonstrated this you can download the test and check them your self.

The fact that its even a consideration, demonstrates that something is seriously wrong.

Again, HOW you get to the results does not matter, so being standard compliant in the implementation (which standard?) or not is irrelevant. Being based on a standard interface, seriously? It doesn't exist yet, that's the whole point.

Indeed. UI libraries do not belong to a language specification, period.

And iostreams do belong there because? If it's a matter of being a purist about what is a language, IO is not part of a formal language, so it shouldn't be part of the language specification. And luckily it isn't, and UI isn't proposed to be part of the language specification, either. One is, and the other is being proposed to be, part of the standard library specification, which is not the language, but a set of tools to use with it. You can use the language without EVER calling any piece of the standard library.