Hi Gevorg, I agree that in terms of "being eventually accepted as a C++ standard", any idea of boost::microsoft or boost::directx is deemed to fail. However, there are many boost libraries that currently exist and have no chance in hell of being accepted into the C++ standard. Cheers, Christian On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Gevorg Voskanyan <v_gevorg@yahoo.com>wrote:
Hi Christian,
Christian Schladetsch wrote:
It is certainly untrue to claim that DirectX is not relevant to C++. I do not think, and many others would agree, that OpenGL is a real alternative.
I have no wish in turning this into a flame war of DX vs GL. Whatever. I simply wanted to raise the idea of a boost::directx or boost::microsoft::directx namespace, to house common solutions.
The reality is that DirectX is here, it is supported by manufacturers, it is needed by C++ developers, and it will stay here.
The idea to have a proper C++ interface for DirectX sounds a good one indeed, but does it have to be in boost to be widely useful for C++ folks out there? I personally do not see that to be a requirement for what you propose. What about creating a separate open source project and put it on e.g. SourceForge? It could be licensed under the Boost Software License, and have quality standards similar to Boost. However I do not see something like that as a part of boost itself for the following reasons: - Wrapping only one proprietary API has no precedents in boost libraries. - Reasonable portability is a must. - Libraries are proposed and accepted in boost with eventual standardization in mind. An interface to a specific proprietary API doesn't fit here.
Nevertheless, I do support your initiative to provide a C++-friendly interface for DirectX in general, and hope you continue your work on this subject for the benefit of the whole C++ community.
With Kind Regards, Gevorg
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost