RFC : About forking a C++11 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers
Hi, Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality. I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library. Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community? I have not a clear idea of the cost of doing this work, how it should be done, what would be the limitations, ... but I'm sure that this would be quite useful on the projects that are forced to use C++98 and an excellent bridge to those that will move from C++98 to C++11 compilers. There are some Boost libraries that could be used to reduce the limitations, as Boost.Config/Predef, Boost.Move, ...and others that could be used as inspiration on how to implement them using C++98. Anyway, if you find that this will be useful to you at your work we will need your participation. Would you be interested in working on it? as a Boost community project? outside Boost, as an independent project? Comments and suggestion welcome. Best, Vicente P.S. The same can be done for C++14 standard libraries and the future standard C++17 libraries P.S.S. The same can be done for C++14 libraries and the future C++17 libraries but this time adapting to C++11 compilers (this will be much easier but the concerned community will be quite different ).
On 6/2/2016 6:09 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi,
Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community?
Most C++11 libraries have a Boost equivalent. In that case you could either use the Boost library equivalent with your C++98 compiler or use CXXD so that when you upgraded to a C++11 compiler you would not have to change your code. So I assume you are talking about a C++11 library that does not have a Boost equivalent. In which case what C++11/14/17 standard library are you interested in forking ? snipped...
Le 03/06/2016 à 01:35, Edward Diener a écrit :
On 6/2/2016 6:09 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi,
Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community?
Most C++11 libraries have a Boost equivalent. In that case you could either use the Boost library equivalent with your C++98 compiler or use CXXD so that when you upgraded to a C++11 compiler you would not have to change your code. CXXD would not ensure an almost compliant standard library. CXXD could be used to choose between this new library (scope C++11, implementation C++98) and the C++11 standard one. So I assume you are talking about a C++11 library that does not have a Boost equivalent. In which case what C++11/14/17 standard library are you interested in forking ? No I was talking about the whole C++11 standard library.
Vicente
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers.
Are there any legal implications to forking a public domain library and attaching a boost license to it?
Le 03/06/2016 à 05:27, David Sankel a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers.
Are there any legal implications to forking a public domain library and attaching a boost license to it?
Thanks David for raising the License issue. This is determinant point that making this kind of projects out of the scope of Boost. :) Anyway if someone is interested, please contact me privately. Sorry for the noise, Vicente
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community?
Yes. At least for what we do where I work. The cyber-security field works with very old machines, either for forensics (people forget they have some old machine until it gets hacked and some old process that always "just worked" stops working), teaching (teaching old, outmoded techniques helps to illustrate cyber security problems without giving people tools for modern exploitation), or competitions. I kind of hate having to work with clunky, antediluvian C++ compilers that magnify the level of woe required to deal with old machinery. Especially while the rest of the C++ world moves on to the spiffy-shiny features found in the later compilers. Having at least a library that helps us use some of those nifty features can help us use our skills on more modern projects when we move on to another job, while easing the efforts required to do our work. Anyway, if you find that this will be useful to you at your work we will
need your participation. Would you be interested in working on it?
Hmmm... am I even knowledgeable enough? While I may find myself learning quite a lot about C++ by studying the boost code people write, I am also humbled by what I see there. I fear I am only beginning to dip into some of the intermediate meta-programming techniques that seem to confer tremendous power to this language. as a Boost community project?
outside Boost, as an independent project?
Hmmm... The boost 'brand' confers a certain gravitas. If you wish to maintain this gravitas in the new library, I'd say keep the boost brand, but require the same rigor. - Trey
Le 06/06/2016 à 11:16, Joseph Van Riper a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community?
Yes. At least for what we do where I work.
The cyber-security field works with very old machines, either for forensics (people forget they have some old machine until it gets hacked and some old process that always "just worked" stops working), teaching (teaching old, outmoded techniques helps to illustrate cyber security problems without giving people tools for modern exploitation), or competitions.
I kind of hate having to work with clunky, antediluvian C++ compilers that magnify the level of woe required to deal with old machinery. Especially while the rest of the C++ world moves on to the spiffy-shiny features found in the later compilers. Having at least a library that helps us use some of those nifty features can help us use our skills on more modern projects when we move on to another job, while easing the efforts required to do our work. A library wouldn't change your compiler ;-), but it could change the way you program :).
Anyway, if you find that this will be useful to you at your work we will
need your participation. Would you be interested in working on it?
Hmmm... am I even knowledgeable enough?
While I may find myself learning quite a lot about C++ by studying the boost code people write, I am also humbled by what I see there. I fear I am only beginning to dip into some of the intermediate meta-programming techniques that seem to confer tremendous power to this language.
as a Boost community project?
outside Boost, as an independent project?
Hmmm...
The boost 'brand' confers a certain gravitas. If you wish to maintain this gravitas in the new library, I'd say keep the boost brand, but require the same rigor. We have a License issue, so it couldn't be a Boost library :(
Vicente P.S. Please, contact me privately if you are interested.
Vicente, On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the Boost/C++ community?
Just got to read this suggestion of yours. It seems like a noble cause... but please let me express my doubts. I suspect that'll be a *lot* of effort. I suspect some C++11 functionality will have to be re-implemented! All that will take time... The problem is that you start on a project with limited usefulness timeframe. As time progresses you'll be serving ever-shrinking pool of customers. More so, the existing installations are unlikely to need such a C++11 emulation. Those installations already have their environment set... old and preserved C++03. Just my thoughts. Can easily be wrong. I usually am. V.
participants (5)
-
David Sankel -
Edward Diener -
Joseph Van Riper -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba -
Vladimir Batov