2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by iainmerrick on Sunday June 10, 2018 @08:04PM (#17280832)

If they're going to add some big new module to the standard, it should be networking, not 2D graphics.

Edit to add a little more rationale: networking is something quite a lot of programs need; it always needs OS support, but different OSes have different APIs that do basically the same thing. It's fairly easy to pick a common subset that covers 95% of use cases and there would be huge value in standardizing it. I would definitely use it.

2D graphics is something that not many programs need, and that can already be done in pure user code (apart from actually displaying it on the screen). It's hard to pick a useful common subset -- what kinds of curves do you support? How about dashes, outlines, shadows? What about color spaces? What about displaying to the screen, what about printing? It would be a huge mess. Even if it were standardized I'm not sure I would end up using it (especially if it were as awkward to use as much of the STL).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by mattnewport on Sunday June 10, 2018 @08:33PM (#17280922)

Networking is coming: the TS was published earlier this year and there are efforts to get it into C++20.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/n473...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by pjmlp on Monday June 11, 2018 @03:07AM (#17282383)

It has been pushed to C++23 thanks to executors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by DLudwig on Monday June 11, 2018 @03:19PM (#17287565)

I agree that having a standard with a common subset of widely-used features would be of value, however, I'm suspicious of the claim that it could cover "95% of use cases". Are there some specific use-cases that you have, or had in mind?

[ Parent | on HN ]