Is this OT?

[Socketd]

Hi all

Asking questions about Boost, wxWindows, ACE and so on is OT, but asking
if we can recommend a library for GUI's, networking or whatever is fine
right? (As long as we don't start any wxWindows vs Fox (fx) threads!).

br
socketd

[perseus]

Re: Is this OT? "socketd&q uot; Knows. He Is a SEMANTICS Specialist!

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:29:12 +0200, Socketd <db@NO_SPAM_tra ceroute.dk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hi all
>
>Asking questions about Boost, wxWindows, ACE and so on is OT, but asking
>if we can recommend a library for GUI's, networking or whatever is fine
>right? (As long as we don't start any wxWindows vs Fox (fx) threads!).
>
>br
>socketd[/color]

Please ask this idiot, socketd, if your question is appropriate for
this group or not. He is a semantics specialist. He doesn't even know
the extend of the C++ language. This idiot actually thinks that
listing all the files of a directory in C++ is OFF THE SUBJECT.
What an idiot!

perseus

[Default User]

Re: Is this OT?

Socketd wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Hi all
>
> Asking questions about Boost, wxWindows, ACE and so on is OT, but asking
> if we can recommend a library for GUI's, networking or whatever is fine
> right? (As long as we don't start any wxWindows vs Fox (fx) threads!).[/color]



I tend to be of the mind that Boost should be off-topic, but that's not
the general consensus of the frequent newsgroup posters. I understand
that it will likely be in the standard SOME DAY but it isn't currently.
Right now, it is a third-party library that is not included in any
compiler distribution that I know of.

For someone like me, who's working on tightly controlled projects, a new
library can't just be plopped in and used. The process for qualifying a
library for stuff that flies fast over your heads is arduous.

As an unmoderated group, it's the group common agreement that determines
topicality.




Brian Rodenborn

[Default User]

Re: Is this OT?

Gavin Deane wrote:
[color=blue]
> However, there is a difference between discussing the use of Boost and
> mentioning it as a potential solution. It is written to be
> standard-compliant and platform independent so if it offers a solution
> I think it is worth mentioning. The questioner then has the
> opportunity to investigate it and consider using it.[/color]


I understand that. As I was trying to get across, it's still (at this
time) a third-party library. While standard-compliant, and so usuable by
pretty much everyone, it's still the case that it doesn't come with a
standard library set for compilers. A solution using Boost requires the
download and installation of said libraries, and for some people it just
won't be possible.

Unfortunately, people who suggest Boost to solve problems don't make
clear much of the time. The answer often goes like, "it's easy, just use
Boost's lexical cast."

As I said, while I kind of object to this, it's not the prevailing
opinion. Unlike some, I respect the feelings of the regulars and so
won't complain.




Brian Rodenborn