comp.lang.c++
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++?hl=en
comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Friendly GUI for windows building? - 20 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/c865fa27ccf9e327?hl=en
* Practice of basic concepts - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/44be24048e34514b?hl=en
* C++ standards committee looking at adding Cairo to the C++ standard - 5
messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/0b3c6e40a26c7051?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Friendly GUI for windows building?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/c865fa27ccf9e327?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:01 pm
From: woodbrian77@gmail.com
We'll see.
== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:01 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 22:20, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:08:00 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> You only pay for Qt if you want to link statically mate.
>>>
>>>
>> Please don't swear here. I didn't like MFC either.
>
> Your repeated requests to stop fucking swearing will ALWAYS be ignored
> so you may as well stop requesting it.
Well, this is not right fible, you need to pay for that qt shit in anycase,
otherwise you may not distribute your compilation. You are an idiot,
== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:13 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 04/01/2014 23:01, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2014 22:20, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:08:00 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You only pay for Qt if you want to link statically mate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please don't swear here. I didn't like MFC either.
>>
>> Your repeated requests to stop fucking swearing will ALWAYS be ignored
>> so you may as well stop requesting it.
>
> Well, this is not right fible, you need to pay for that qt shit in anycase,
> otherwise you may not distribute your compilation. You are an idiot,
You are a tool.
"Qt is available under the following copyright licenses:[42]
GNU LGPL[4] 2.1 version with Qt special exception
GNU GPL[43] 3.0 version
Commercial Developer License[5]"
Now go learn what LGPL is, you idiot.
/Flibble
== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:27 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 23:01, Ike Shaffer wrote:
>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2014 22:20, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:08:00 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You only pay for Qt if you want to link statically mate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Please don't swear here. I didn't like MFC either.
>>>
>>> Your repeated requests to stop fucking swearing will ALWAYS be ignored
>>> so you may as well stop requesting it.
>>
>> Well, this is not right fible, you need to pay for that qt shit in
>> anycase,
>> otherwise you may not distribute your compilation. You are an idiot,
>
> You are a tool.
>
> "Qt is available under the following copyright licenses:[42]
> GNU LGPL[4] 2.1 version with Qt special exception GNU GPL[43] 3.0
> version Commercial Developer License[5]"
>
> Now go learn what LGPL is, you idiot.
Why, can't you read "Commercial Licence"? Idiot.
== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:34 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 04/01/2014 23:27, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2014 23:01, Ike Shaffer wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/01/2014 22:20, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:08:00 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You only pay for Qt if you want to link statically mate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't swear here. I didn't like MFC either.
>>>>
>>>> Your repeated requests to stop fucking swearing will ALWAYS be ignored
>>>> so you may as well stop requesting it.
>>>
>>> Well, this is not right fible, you need to pay for that qt shit in
>>> anycase,
>>> otherwise you may not distribute your compilation. You are an idiot,
>>
>> You are a tool.
>>
>> "Qt is available under the following copyright licenses:[42]
>> GNU LGPL[4] 2.1 version with Qt special exception GNU GPL[43] 3.0
>> version Commercial Developer License[5]"
>>
>> Now go learn what LGPL is, you idiot.
>
> Why, can't you read "Commercial Licence"? Idiot.
You don't have to accept the commercial licence, idiot. You can accept
the LGPL licence, idiot.
/Flibble
== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:41 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Why, can't you read "Commercial Licence"? Idiot.
>
> You don't have to accept the commercial licence, idiot. You can accept
> the LGPL licence, idiot.
You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since it
would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a big bag
of money to them.
They are from Finland, they all are gays.
== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:43 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 04/01/2014 23:41, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>>> Why, can't you read "Commercial Licence"? Idiot.
>>
>> You don't have to accept the commercial licence, idiot. You can accept
>> the LGPL licence, idiot.
>
> You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since it
> would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a big bag
> of money to them.
>
> They are from Finland, they all are gays.
LGPL lets you distribute your application (and the other party's DLLs)
free of charge, idiot.
/Flibble
== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:46 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
>> You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since it
>> would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a big
>> bag of money to them.
>>
>> They are from Finland, they all are gays.
>
> LGPL lets you distribute your application (and the other party's DLLs)
> free of charge, idiot.
Not if you letter charge for your efforts, imbecile.
== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:52 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 04/01/2014 23:46, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>>> You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since it
>>> would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a big
>>> bag of money to them.
>>>
>>> They are from Finland, they all are gays.
>>
>> LGPL lets you distribute your application (and the other party's DLLs)
>> free of charge, idiot.
>
> Not if you letter charge for your efforts, imbecile.
LGPL lets you distribute commercial proprietary software (i.e.
chargeable) linked with the other party's LPGL DLLs (for free), idiot.
You think changing the follow up group to "alt.ufo.reports" is funny?
It is certainly childish, idiot.
/Flibble
== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 3:57 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 23:46, Ike Shaffer wrote:
>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>>>> You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since
>>>> it would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a
>>>> big bag of money to them.
>>>>
>>>> They are from Finland, they all are gays.
>>>
>>> LGPL lets you distribute your application (and the other party's DLLs)
>>> free of charge, idiot.
>>
>> Not if you letter charge for your efforts, imbecile.
>
> LGPL lets you distribute commercial proprietary software (i.e.
> chargeable) linked with the other party's LPGL DLLs (for free), idiot.
Then you contradict yourself, making the "Commercial Licence" invalid,
asshat.
== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 4:01 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 04/01/2014 23:57, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2014 23:46, Ike Shaffer wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You mean I need to read that crap first. That spoils the fun, since
>>>>> it would tell me I may not distribute the compilation unless paying a
>>>>> big bag of money to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are from Finland, they all are gays.
>>>>
>>>> LGPL lets you distribute your application (and the other party's DLLs)
>>>> free of charge, idiot.
>>>
>>> Not if you letter charge for your efforts, imbecile.
>>
>> LGPL lets you distribute commercial proprietary software (i.e.
>> chargeable) linked with the other party's LPGL DLLs (for free), idiot.
>
> Then you contradict yourself, making the "Commercial Licence" invalid,
> asshat.
There is no contradiction, idiot. The commercial licence is totally
separate to and what it offers is different to the LGPL license, idiot.
You can choose one or the other, idiot. The LGPL licensed Qt has no
charge, idiot; but you can charge for *your* software, idiot.
If you read my initial reply telling you to read about what LGPL is we
could have perhaps been saved from your idiotic further replies.
/Flibble
== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 4:28 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Then you contradict yourself, making the "Commercial Licence" invalid,
>> asshat.
>
> There is no contradiction, idiot. The commercial licence is totally
> separate to and what it offers is different to the LGPL license, idiot.
> You can choose one or the other, idiot. The LGPL licensed Qt has no
> charge, idiot; but you can charge for *your* software, idiot.
Then I guess you can skip reading that LGPL manifest and just send an e-
mail to them, telling that you intend to use their crap, and make big
money.
Let them call you an imbecile! LOL
You are a wise man flib :)
== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 4:31 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 05/01/2014 00:28, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>>> Then you contradict yourself, making the "Commercial Licence" invalid,
>>> asshat.
>>
>> There is no contradiction, idiot. The commercial licence is totally
>> separate to and what it offers is different to the LGPL license, idiot.
>> You can choose one or the other, idiot. The LGPL licensed Qt has no
>> charge, idiot; but you can charge for *your* software, idiot.
>
> Then I guess you can skip reading that LGPL manifest and just send an e-
> mail to them, telling that you intend to use their crap, and make big
> money.
>
> Let them call you an imbecile! LOL
>
> You are a wise man flib :)
I've decided that as well as being an idiot you are also a troll so
welcome to my killfile.
/Flibble
== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 4:36 pm
From: Ike Shaffer
Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Then I guess you can skip reading that LGPL manifest and just send an
>> e-
>> mail to them, telling that you intend to use their crap, and make big
>> money.
>>
>> Let them call you an imbecile! LOL
>>
>> You are a wise man flib
>
> I've decided that as well as being an idiot you are also a troll so
> welcome to my killfile.
Ohh yes, you lost the debate, proved as imbecile.
Just send that email, flib, tell them you won't register nor pay a shit.
Let them conclude this discussion. No need need for their LGPL reading.
== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 8:01 pm
From: "Alf P. Steinbach"
On 05.01.2014 01:36, Ike Shaffer wrote his umpteenth noise article:
>
> Ohh yes, you lost the debate, proved as imbecile.
plink
== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 8:06 pm
From: Öö Tiib
On Sunday, 5 January 2014 02:36:34 UTC+2, Ike Shaffer wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> >> Then I guess you can skip reading that LGPL manifest and just send an
> >> e-
> >> mail to them, telling that you intend to use their crap, and make big
> >> money.
> >>
> >> Let them call you an imbecile! LOL
> >>
> >> You are a wise man flib
> >
> > I've decided that as well as being an idiot you are also a troll so
> > welcome to my killfile.
>
> Ohh yes, you lost the debate, proved as imbecile.
>
> Just send that email, flib, tell them you won't register nor pay a shit.
>
> Let them conclude this discussion. No need need for their LGPL reading.
It is perfectly legal to use dynamically linked Qt in commercially
(or how ever you want to license it) distributed application. There are
only such limitations:
1. Your application must be dynamically linked to the Qt components that
came with your downloaded LGPL Qt distribution. No static linking allowed.
2. You can't make changes to the Qt source code itself and sell your
application based on the changed version of Qt.
3. You must inform users of your application that Qt is used in the
application in some licence text or in a readme somewhere within your
distributed application files.
4. You must provide a copy of the Qt LGPL licence file together with your
distributed application files.
These things above can't be show stopper problems.
The biggest annoyance with Qt is that it tends to create large binaries.
Lesser annoyance is that it uses custom preprocessors that do not
understand too well C++ (particularily templates and preprocessor) and
other tools tend also not to understand Qt crap (underlining it red
and reporting errors).
== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 2:15 am
From: David FLEURY
Le 04/01/2014 11:51, Francois Guillet a �crit :
> Hi
>
> Creating many windows and controls is very tedious when the parameters
> of the CreateWindowEx function have to be set manually.
>
> I'm looking for a tool able to build code automatically from drag and
> drop of objects (buttons, check boxes, edit controls...) onto a first
> empty window, and allowing repositionning, sizing, property settings...
>
> This was provided in environments like C++ builder, but I'm searching
> for a more light tool that would generate simple cpp and h files to
> include in my project and that wouldn't need an obscure and heavy
> library (I'm using codeblock/gcc/mingw).
>
> Some advises?
>
> Thanks
You can give a chance to FTLK. It has not a very up-to-date look, and
can be though to learn but it is small, free, and "easy" to enhance.
There is an GUI editor (FLuid) which use drag & drop and generate code
for an window.
Regards
== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 6:15 am
From: Francois Guillet
David Brown avait �nonc� :
> On 04/01/14 11:51, Francois Guillet wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Creating many windows and controls is very tedious when the parameters
>> of the CreateWindowEx function have to be set manually.
>>
>> I'm looking for a tool able to build code automatically from drag and
>> drop of objects (buttons, check boxes, edit controls...) onto a first
>> empty window, and allowing repositionning, sizing, property settings...
>>
>> This was provided in environments like C++ builder, but I'm searching
>> for a more light tool that would generate simple cpp and h files to
>> include in my project and that wouldn't need an obscure and heavy
>> library (I'm using codeblock/gcc/mingw).
>>
>> Some advises?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> What about using wxWidgets rather than raw Windows API? I don't know where
> you draw lines for "heavy" and "light" libraries, but wxWidgets is certainly
> not obscure - and there is very good support for it in Code::Blocks.
I will have a look at your solution after testing FTKL which seems
simpler.
Thanks.
== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 6:18 am
From: Francois Guillet
Le 05/01/2014, David FLEURY a suppos� :
> Le 04/01/2014 11:51, Francois Guillet a �crit :
>> Hi
>>
>> Creating many windows and controls is very tedious when the parameters
>> of the CreateWindowEx function have to be set manually.
>>
>> I'm looking for a tool able to build code automatically from drag and
>> drop of objects (buttons, check boxes, edit controls...) onto a first
>> empty window, and allowing repositionning, sizing, property settings...
>>
>> This was provided in environments like C++ builder, but I'm searching
>> for a more light tool that would generate simple cpp and h files to
>> include in my project and that wouldn't need an obscure and heavy
>> library (I'm using codeblock/gcc/mingw).
>>
>> Some advises?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> You can give a chance to FTLK. It has not a very up-to-date look, and can be
> though to learn but it is small, free, and "easy" to enhance.
>
> There is an GUI editor (FLuid) which use drag & drop and generate code for an
> window.
>
> Regards
The first solution I will try is yours. From what I read on fltk.org,
FTKL seems to be simple and fits the requirements.
Thanks for the reply!
== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 2:24 pm
From: Rupert Miscavige
Francois Guillet wrote:
> Le 05/01/2014, David FLEURY a supposé :
>> Le 04/01/2014 11:51, Francois Guillet a écrit :
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Creating many windows and controls is very tedious when the parameters
>>> of the CreateWindowEx function have to be set manually.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a tool able to build code automatically from drag and
>>> drop of objects (buttons, check boxes, edit controls...) onto a first
>>> empty window, and allowing repositionning, sizing, property
>>> settings...
>>>
>>> This was provided in environments like C++ builder, but I'm searching
>>> for a more light tool that would generate simple cpp and h files to
>>> include in my project and that wouldn't need an obscure and heavy
>>> library (I'm using codeblock/gcc/mingw).
>>>
>>> Some advises?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> You can give a chance to FTLK. It has not a very up-to-date look, and
>> can be though to learn but it is small, free, and "easy" to enhance.
>>
>> There is an GUI editor (FLuid) which use drag & drop and generate code
>> for an window.
>>
>> Regards
>
> The first solution I will try is yours. From what I read on fltk.org,
> FTKL seems to be simple and fits the requirements.
> Thanks for the reply!
Bullshit. If they are so good, why aren't they compile a Windows binary
distributable? That they require YOU to compile their crap is the first
sign that their crap IS crap.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Practice of basic concepts
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/44be24048e34514b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 4 2014 4:45 pm
From: Luca Risolia
Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>>Display a 10*10 multiplication table, nicely formatted.
>
> ::std::cout << /* not tested */
> " | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9\n"
> "--|----------------------------------------\n"
> " 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n"
> " 1| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9\n"
> " 2| 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18\n"
> " 3| 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27\n"
> " 4| 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36\n"
> " 5| 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45\n"
> " 6| 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54\n"
> " 7| 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63\n"
> " 8| 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72\n"
> " 9| 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81\n";
::std::cout << R"(
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
--+----------------------------------------
0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2| 0 2 4 6 8 0 12 14 16 18
3| 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
4| 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
5| 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6| 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
7| 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
8| 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
9| 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81
)";
==============================================================================
TOPIC: C++ standards committee looking at adding Cairo to the C++ standard
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/t/0b3c6e40a26c7051?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 7:20 am
From: Rui Maciel
It appears that Herb Sutter wants to add a 2D drawing library to the C++ standard, and he is
looking at libCairo as a base for this library.
The link to the Cairo's mailing list:
http://lists.cairographics.org/archives/cairo/2013-December/024858.html
What are your thoughts on this?
Rui Maciel
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 8:00 am
From: Paavo Helde
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:labt7p$co4$1@dont-email.me:
> It appears that Herb Sutter wants to add a 2D drawing library to the
> C++ standard, and he is looking at libCairo as a base for this
> library.
>
> The link to the Cairo's mailing list:
> http://lists.cairographics.org/archives/cairo/2013-December/024858.html
>
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
It would be a major relief if things like SVG rendering could be done
cross-platform and with standard tools. Especially all the text/font
management business is currently very hairy and largely platform-
specific. About half (and the hairier half!) of third-party libraries
used by our current product are currently there for the single task of
SVG rendering, and on one platform we even gave up with this when it all
got too hairy. Libcairo is in that mix somewhere, too.
So I see it as a big step in the right direction. If something like this
can be standardized, then by all means do it! I understand the major
problem with GUI frameworks etc. is that they really cannot be
standardized.
Cheers
Paavo
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 12:34 pm
From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> writes: I understand the major
>problem with GUI frameworks etc. is that they really cannot be
>standardized.
Yes we can! Of course, we need some abstraction!
Abstraction means: define the abstract GUI components, like
�root window�, �menu� in C++, but leave it to the implementation
how to actually implement them, how they look like.
The C++ program must not contain references to specific
colors or pixel locations. A menu might be a one-dimensional
list of texts in one device, two dimensional list of symbols
in another device. The C++ program does not know this.
The implementation chooses a safe default for the look
(colors, dimensions, fonts) and might allow style
customizations of the GUI via means not defined in the
standard (eg using a DSL). A C++ GUI program will still be
usable without any such customizations even though it might
have a not very exciting �standard appearance�.
Ten years ago, I published this text:
http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/c++_standard_extensions_en
(the first part of the text on this web page was posted to
comp.std.c++ on 2003-09-03).
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 2:01 pm
From: Mr Flibble
On 05/01/2014 20:34, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> writes: I understand the major
>> problem with GUI frameworks etc. is that they really cannot be
>> standardized.
>
> Yes we can! Of course, we need some abstraction!
>
> Abstraction means: define the abstract GUI components, like
> �root window�, �menu� in C++, but leave it to the implementation
> how to actually implement them, how they look like.
>
> The C++ program must not contain references to specific
> colors or pixel locations. A menu might be a one-dimensional
> list of texts in one device, two dimensional list of symbols
> in another device. The C++ program does not know this.
>
> The implementation chooses a safe default for the look
> (colors, dimensions, fonts) and might allow style
> customizations of the GUI via means not defined in the
> standard (eg using a DSL). A C++ GUI program will still be
> usable without any such customizations even though it might
> have a not very exciting �standard appearance�.
>
> Ten years ago, I published this text:
>
> http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/c++_standard_extensions_en
>
> (the first part of the text on this web page was posted to
> comp.std.c++ on 2003-09-03).
It's a bad idea as nobody can agree on the design of such abstractions
and it's a bad idea because it is something that simply shouldn't be
part of the standard C++ language.
If you are going to standardize a 2D drawing and GUI library why not
also standardize on a 3D library of which 2D is a subset? Answer: no
need to as we already have perfectly adequate libraries such as OpenGL
and SDL.
/Flibble
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 5 2014 2:38 pm
From: Paavo Helde
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVE_THIS@i42.co.uk> wrote in news:q-Kdnc8hO_
2oS1TPnZ2dnUVZ8iCdnZ2d@giganews.com:
> If you are going to standardize a 2D drawing and GUI library why not
> also standardize on a 3D library of which 2D is a subset? Answer: no
> need to as we already have perfectly adequate libraries such as OpenGL
> and SDL.
So, can we do (2D) SVG rendering easily with OpenGL or SDL, on any average
Windows, Mac or Linux box (no UI involved, the result would be a bitmap
image sent to the HTTP client)? If so, we would switch over instantly.
Cheers
Paavo
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "comp.lang.c++"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment