I guess thats where we agree to disagree. As I've pissed all you c++ graphics programmers off, I dont want to say anymore on this thread about it. Email me privately if you want my views. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 03/24/2010 05:43 PM, Tom Brinkman wrote:
The C part in graphics/HPC programming is the equivalent of the "inline Assembler" of earlier days.
Here is were we probably disagree. "C' coding is always going to be important in graphics programming. Its always going to be around in the backround. Most will want to wrap it, though, as they always have.
In the future, hardware acceleration will be even more of an issue than it has been, so stay tuned. Lots of cool stuff coming your way very soon.
IMO, you should just play it loose between the two worlds, "C" and "C++". Pick and choose what works for you, but keep in eye on what the "C" guys are up to because they are doing some cool as shit.
I fully agree on the "pick and choose what works" approach. However, there is absolutely nothing special about C. Yes, it gives access to "raw pointers". But so what ? Fortran is catching up on support for parallelism. And other languages (including interpreters, runtimes) get built-in support for multi-core architectures, too. Not to speak of all the research languages that are being invented specifically to address the needs of the HPC community (or tomorrow's mainstream computers). There really isn't anything in C that deserves any special attention.
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost