220 5549 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Fernando Cacciola Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: A library to provide a virtual memory vector of strings Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:56:47 -0300 Lines: 205 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <861959e9-74f3-4ed8-aeca-bad9c3256acd@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c266be6d5fb804e249d524 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374706650 3016 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2013 22:57:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:57:30 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBWFXYGHQKGQE2XAUIRY@isocpp.org Thu Jul 25 00:57:31 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f198.google.com ([74.125.82.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V27zu-0005eS-3i for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:57:30 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f198.google.com with SMTP id q54sf160966wes.1 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HrkDIQ+MGs2DQ/hVeCzlqMyo/zkI/Y7oy7qlOewKogs=; b=s/A95YDf+nIELRpWrcpeDEJIB2xZSi3NGP3nmkWGvtZNpIfypw+c+aRVnO/OQ12gnY r6eHUOMnpn9TcRkLXd9fCAHd+Gyu0o+0pmE200CqHmjQDDwYs7SWRQFY9Rdg9eLot2uE PSVNeoZa3CQot6FzIxxwMKH9rbK6U8fy2I/Ia72DCdRhbMPL6pSs4CoYzhk2Z+TWN9UO ZkEqKoJSuSzpvwvVyWBlc4LqLafNmNuFwa4ixiNZ+wZAStO1dceGbFe3vKeeOh4c1Vc7 R3lBOca9x/UOw9gM97as/MZfUUGvp++9mKGSe3rnm4Qxh9rlGF+kHrkUJrDlt7c7zn/y 0QVQ== X-Received: by 10.112.160.196 with SMTP id xm4mr8756334lbb.6.1374706649319; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.28.6 with SMTP id x6ls26598lag.34.gmail; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.22.42 with SMTP id a10mr18305666laf.30.1374706648401; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a3si16539027lak.104.2013.07.24.15.57.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::229; Original-Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fn20so814666lab.14 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.201.138 with SMTP id ka10mr17309476lbc.72.1374706648045; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.186.41 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:56:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: fernando.cacciola@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fernando.cacciola@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:5549 Archived-At: --001a11c266be6d5fb804e249d524 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte = wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Fernando Cacciola < > fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Indeed. In fact, when I do have the luxury of working on Linux, which is >> almost never, I indeed don't have any problem with the set of C++ (or ev= en >> C) libs at my disposal. So I think I agree with you that the real proble= m >> is the lack of a streamlined cross-platform repository of libraries. >> >> Now, from Samlltalk to Perl to Python (from what I know), they all have >> that, whether you work on Windows or Linux, so it seems to me that it mi= ght >> be a problem that we (a community of C++ "authors") could solve (and not >> just blame Windows as in is MS fault) >> > > I don't agree with the Linux being more easy because my experience workin= g > with linux and boost was basically the same than on windows, in particula= r > because you don't always want versions > that your distribution provides. > OK, though I had always found working on Linux ridicuously simpler than Windows when it came to libraries. Anyway... > The problem is general for all C or C++ libraries distributed around for > developments: there is no semi-official way to get libraries together for= a > specific project. > C and C++ don't have a gem like Ruby or a pip like Python. Hopefully, > there is some work going on on the Ryppl project but I don't think it wil= l > be ready in the coming months... > NuGets got a C++ release recently but there is no cross-platform > implementation. > > I believe that having a gem-like tool used by most C++ programmers would > help a lot solving you are pointing, standardizing tons of libs is not > really a good solution to me. > > Exactly. I concluded the same after Olaf post. Except that I really like the peer-review process that entails adding a lib to boost or having it proposed for standarization, so what I think might be a huge step forward is a gem-like tool coupled with a peer-review boost-like repository. Now, that sounds like something to post on the boost lists rather than here, except for the fact that I wonder if the language itself doesn't need something specific to support this. Modules seems to be quite close but I'm not that familiar with their current status. Do they solve the "where is everything" problem which is IMO at the root of the reason why is such a mess under Windows? IIUC, what other languages have is a formalized physical code structure, which makes adding libraries a completely defined procedure. In current C++, however, as a library author, I only define part of it but the end user must take care of manually relating all the pieces. This is IMO a big part of the problem. IMO, users should not have to figure out how to bind everything toghether when using a selection of libraries from different sources, like is the case with so many other languages IIUC. Coudn't something as simple as a standarized physical code structure do it? Isn't that the reason why it's so damn simple under Linux? Best --=20 Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/. --001a11c266be6d5fb804e249d524 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte <<= a href=3D"mailto:mjklaim@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mjklaim@gmail.com= > wrote:
=

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10= :15 PM, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. In fact, when I do have the lux= ury of working on Linux, which is almost never, I indeed don't have any= problem with the set of C++ (or even C) libs at my disposal. So I think I = agree with you that the real problem is the lack of a streamlined cross-pla= tform repository of libraries.

Now, from Samlltalk to Perl to Python (from what I know), th= ey all have that, whether you work on Windows or Linux, so it seems to me t= hat it might be a problem that we (a community of C++ "authors") = could solve (and not just blame Windows as in is MS fault)

I don't agree with the Linux being m= ore easy because my experience working with linux and boost was basically t= he same than on windows, in particular because you don't always want ve= rsions
that your distribution provides.

OK, though I had always found working on Linux= ridicuously simpler than Windows when it came to libraries. Anyway...

=A0
The problem is general for all C or C++ libraries = distributed around for developments: there is no semi-official way to get l= ibraries together for a specific project.
C and C++ don't have a gem like Ruby or a pi= p like Python. Hopefully, there is some work going on on the Ryppl project = but I don't think it will be ready in the coming months...
NuGets go= t a C++ release recently but there is no cross-platform implementation.

I believe that having a gem-like tool = used by most C++ programmers would help a lot solving you are pointing, sta= ndardizing tons of libs is not really a good solution to me.

Exactly. I concluded the same after=A0Ola= f post.
Except that I really like the peer-review process tha= t entails adding a lib to boost or having it proposed for standarization, s= o what I think might be a huge step forward is a gem-like tool coupled with= a peer-review boost-like repository.

Now, that sounds like something to post on the boost lists r= ather than here, except for the fact that I wonder if the language itself d= oesn't need something specific to support this. Modules seems to be qui= te close but I'm not that familiar with their current status.

Do they solve the "where is everything" problem which is IMO = at the root of the reason why is such a mess under Windows?=A0

IIUC, what other languages have is a formalized physical code struct= ure, which makes adding libraries a completely defined procedure. In curren= t C++, however, as a library author, I only define part of it but the end u= ser must take care of manually relating all the pieces. This is IMO a big p= art of the problem. IMO, users should not have to figure out how to bind ev= erything toghether when using a selection of libraries from different sourc= es, like is the case with so many other languages IIUC. Coudn't somethi= ng as simple as a standarized physical code structure do it? Isn't that= the reason why it's so damn simple under Linux?

Best

--
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft = Consulting, Founder
http:/= /www.scisoft-consulting.com

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
 
 
--001a11c266be6d5fb804e249d524-- .