Re: 'Graphics' of libwy

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:09:22 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 17/12/2024 17:53, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

You don't want a library that only works with the latest bleeding edge

versions

of C++. IMO C++ 2011 would be a reasonable oldest version.
 

>
I'd much rather have one that takes advantage of relatively modern C++
features than one that re-invented these same features in their one
special ways - which is what you see with these older libraries.  I'd

A lot of companies systems don't have their compilers upgraded if consistency
are whats required. A security company I worked at a few years ago only
went up to C++14 because they didn't want any nasty security hole surprises
if they upgraded the compiler and started using the new features (or even the
older ones).

new, well-designed modern C++ gui library, I'd want to see concepts,

Ugh. Concepts and constraints are yet another syntatic soup solution to a
problem almost no one has except in various academic ivory towers.

But if the C++ committee were to make a standard C++ gui library as part
of the C++ standard, then it would by definition be part of a later C++
standard.  So if it was targeted for C++29, then of course it could rely
on all the language and library features of standard C++ up to and
including C++29.

Well they won't because sensibly they realise graphics capabilities are so
variable - or non existent - between systems that there's absolutely no point
trying to develop a standard library for it. I was surprised they even
included a threading library given on various embedded systems threading is
not available. Plus its inconsistent - why multithreading but no multiprocess?