Re: C++ forum, Was: Re: Why do you deserve a better IO library
Roland Pibinger wrote:
Andrei Polushin wrote:
Probably, you mean there should be a project which supports developing
and publishing of competing C++ projects. Such project might be focused
on the things like
* domain-wide interfaces,
* unified code conventions,
* unified build system,
* unified test framework,
* unified documentation system,
* unified concurrent release management rules,
* etc. -
thus covering the areas where the C++ community is rather weak, because
they are not directly related to the language itself.
Something like the repoitories that scripting languages create around
their language.
Just like CPAN for Perl? or CTAN for TeX?
I'm not sure whether all your 'unified' ideas are
actually desirable. The libraries, components, frameworks ... should
largely be independent of each other.
Yes, /independent/. That's way they need to obey some common rules:
* Java and C# have unified code conventions.
* Perl, Python, Java, C# have unified documentation system.
* Java has common build system (Ant) and unit test framework (JUnit).
* Perl has simple, but unified build/release system for modules.
* TeX has defined "A Directory Structure for TeX Files" (so they know
how to pack, distribute and install each file).
* ...
So, if you are about things like CPAN etc., then you should note that
a sort of unification was necessary to organize them.
The most crucial is the /domain-wide interfaces/, because there is
nobody who defines them (and nobody knows how to, for lack of relevant
conventions). As a result, we have several XML-related libraries with
incompatible interfaces, so I need to rewrite the code when switching
between them.
--
Andrei Polushin
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]