Re: 'Graphics' of libwy

Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org writes:

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).

Recall that what's being proposed is adding a GUI library to a new C++
standard.  If you don't upgrade your C++ implementation, you don't get
the new C++ standard GUI library -- even if the standardized library is
designed to be compatible with an older C++ standard.

I personally don't think that a GUI library should be part of the C++
standard.  There are enough GUI libraries out there already,
cross-platform and otherwise.  But if such a library were added to the
C++ standard in, say, C++29, there's no reason it shouldn't take
advantage of C++29 features.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */