C++ ISO Standard Committee 2D Graphics Library Discussions

[Klaim]

See: https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!forum/graphics

Apparently, from this message, Laurent should be contacted by Herb Sutter to discuss about the topic.

[eXpl0it3r]

Interesting....

Imagine SFML having an impact on C++14!

[AlexxanderX]

Indeed very interesting. Now I want to know what think Laurent about this

[Klaim]

Imagine SFML having an impact on C++14!

Nope, not C++14, no new feature will get in for that version.

The sooner would be C++17 (assuming release time is right) OR through a TS, but as work really started only recently, I expect that this might not be ready for C++17.
Except if a lot of people gets their hands dirty.

[FRex]

The sooner would be C++17

So with speed Microsoft does things from standards by 2030 we will have it implemented fully in visual, can't wait!

Also, how is there a c++ centric group in Microsoft is beyond me , they are year or two behind other two(!), gratis(!!), open source(!!!) with last standard(but have plenty of cool extensions like the unportable wide api or void main()).

[Klaim]

The sooner would be C++17

So with speed Microsoft does things from standards by 2030 we will have it implemented fully in visual, can't wait!

Errr no Microsoft is not the standard commitee (it's one member), and the commitee changed speed after C++11 which is why there will be a new C++ standard next year already (c++14).

[FRex]

Yes but Microsoft will take years to implement it and it'll be buggy meanwhile and you'll have fun buying two or three visuals in a row till you get what you want 2 years after ratification, like they are doing/did with c++11.
Something cross platform and possibly based on OpenGL is very weird coming from ms, since they are so dismissive of crossplatformness and GL.
Maybe they're looking for graphics API to drop and since they dropped GL on phones and dropped XNA they ran out of things to safely drop(and D3D is no-no to drop).

[eXpl0it3r]

Can I join rant and say that the next VS already includes some C++14 features, even though we're lacking important C++11?

Anyways, yeah we have a long way to go, till we reach 2D graphics in C++...

[Klaim]

Yes but Microsoft will take years to implement it and it'll be buggy meanwhile and you'll have fun buying two or three visuals in a row till you get what you want 2 years after ratification, like they are doing/did with c++11.

Well, Microsoft is the one pushing for graphics here, so I expect them to be the first to implement and publish such a library, as they did with all the technologies they were interested in.

Something cross platform and possibly based on OpenGL is very weird coming from ms, since they are so dismissive of crossplatformness and GL.

First, this is not about MS, it's about the C++ standard. Second, the standard will not provide nor specify an implementation. It specify only interfaces, and sometime performance scale expectations. So whatever the technology inside such a library, that might not be OGL. You don't even care, frankly, as long as your same code works for all platform, which is the point of having a standard library.

Maybe they're looking for graphics API to drop and since they dropped GL on phones and dropped XNA they ran out of things to safely drop(and D3D is no-no to drop).

You're again mixing things, this is not about replacing OGL, read the linked message, this is about 2D graphics only and the point is to have something to rely on both for games and GUI implementations. Also, they open the possibility of 3D but don't want to talk about it until a 2D library is ready.

Can I join rant and say that the next VS already includes some C++14 features, even though we're lacking important C++11?

That's what I'm saying: Microsoft is pushing for this library so it might appear sooner than having the full C++14 implementation from them.

Now, it's really a big problem that Microsoft tools, the most used in the C++ world, is the most lacking, but at this point and time I think they are making as much effort as they can to fix the game. From the point they started with, frankly, it's almost a miracle they managed to get as much features as the VS2013 version is supposed to provide.

That being said, this is not about Microsoft, focusing on the point of the library/disussion would be saner than bashing one implementor.

[Nexus]

I have to agree, this sounds really interesting. If this eventually materialized, I wouldn't be surprised if the API would be strongly inspired by SFML, as it is probably one of the cleanest and most modern

[Lo-X]

forgive my newbyness but I'm not sure I understood what they want to do...
they want to add something like a 2D graphics component/lib directly into C++ ? (because if it is the case, I don't see wy they want to)

[eXpl0it3r]

Well the idea started off with having some sort of UI directly in C++, but since this is a huge topic and everyone would want to have different features etc. they thought about taking it one step back and simply providing a way to draw simple 2D graphics, from which one then can built UIs the way you want.
Expanding the default capabilities of C++ sounds always good to me, since sooner or later it's guaranteed to work cross-platform, which makes it much easier to write applications and reduces the need of additional libraries.

[Grimshaw]

sounds like an hell to come true with all the possible platforms supporting c++

[K-Bal]

Hmm, I guess I don't like the idea. Feels out of scope to me, but I didn't think much about the pros and cons, yet.

[Klaim]

sounds like an hell to come true with all the possible platforms supporting c++

Not if it's only a library interface specification and the focus is on high level requirements (and taking into account experience with implementations).

That's the point of having a library in the standard: the implementor can do whatever he wants as long as it exposes the same interface as the standard.
So, it's not a problem of platform, really, it's a problem of having a majority of people agree on an common interface to rely on in the long-term future.

Which is certainly the hardest thing ever.