sf::Time & sf::Clock vs C++11 chrono

[JayhawkZombie]

If my input is of any use:

We all use std::chrono for our internal timing, but it's not far off from sf::Clock.
Sort of like:

CurrFrameStart = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
TickDelta = std::chrono::duration<double, std::milli>(CurrFrameStart - LastFrameStart).count();

I'd argue that SFML's timing libraries are easier to use, and certainly less verbose, but I see no reason SFML couldn't wrap the C++11 implementation.  It would allow, like Laurent said, conversion between representations, and you'd have access to the system's highest resolution clock if needed.
It would also strip off some more platform-dependent code (and remove that oh-so-beautiful "isWindowsXpOrOlder" check), at least for compilers that support the C++11 standard chrono addition (though I've yet to encounter one that doesn't).

[Laurent]

Of course, the implied goal is to remove all that ugly OS-specific stuff when a standard implementation exists. We don't want to re-invent std::chrono from scratch.

[korczurekk]

Well, if there still will be sf::Time in SFML3 it would be quite important to provide method like asStandardDuration() (in addition to asSeconds() etc.) so it wouldn't be a problem to get it work with stuff like std::this_thread::sleep_for(). I fear that making new sf::Time compatible with std::chrono can cause code to be huge and, as far as I know, we don't want it to happen. At least I don't.

[Laurent]

Well, if there still will be sf::Time in SFML3 it would be quite important to provide method like asStandardDuration() (in addition to asSeconds() etc.) so it wouldn't be a problem to get it work with stuff like std::this_thread::sleep_for()

It was already said at least twice

[korczurekk]

Well, if there still will be sf::Time in SFML3 it would be quite important to provide method like asStandardDuration() (in addition to asSeconds() etc.) so it wouldn't be a problem to get it work with stuff like std::this_thread::sleep_for()

It was already said at least twice

I also read trough it twice and still didn't notice that. ;-; Well, that's my opinion, at least you know what folks think.

[aggsol]

I vote for complete removal including sf::Time. As the example from JayhawkZombie shows there is so little gained from keeping sf::Time. It is IMO not worth the overhead. The additional verbosity and relying on the standard will lower the entry barrier of SFML und will introduce beginners  to more std functions.