2006/11/17, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
HI Marco et. al. I don't have too much to add, other than encouragement, as most of the goals seem well inline with the needs of the OSG. Things I would be hesitant about would be increasing compile time further, increasing code size of the wrappers,
more compile time for better performance, this is not a good reason ?? the boost dependency
and adding an extra external dependency to the OpenSceneGraph distribution.
The boost library become over the years the C++ standard library. from www.boost.org : "We aim to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21> Library Technical Report ( TR1<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1745.pdf>) as a step toward becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed for the upcoming TR2<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1810.html> ." All unix plateform could have a boost library compiled (directly in the distribution or on the boost sourceforge page), and www.boost-consulting.comprovide binary for Windows. W.r.t boost, some engineers love boost, others hate it. Genwrappers uses boost, but this is an external tool that only a small
number of developers need to use. Adding a boost dependency to the core OSG pushes the issue right into everybodies workspace so the love/hate relationship with boost will come to fore.
I 'am not a C++ programmer with 20 years experience, i didn't know if the same problem was appear when the STL has been created. But currently, every engineers know that STL is essential in a C++ project. Best Regards David Callu
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
