C++ Beast Library

Pages: 12
I disagree with just using the fact that people have difficulty with doing things in C++ as an argument to say that it shouldn't be a candidate for a language used for web development.
I don't think anyone made that argument here. I certainly didn't.
What I said was that a) C++ wouldn't be my first choice for web development, b) I don't care if it's anyone else's choice, and c) C++ shouldn't try to cater to those that don't want to use it. The whole idea of "let's try to get people to come back to C++" is a waste of time and energy.

I said "need" there because I think it's one of the blanks that should be filled in the standard library.
Okay, so if the only requirement for inclusion in the standard library is that a particular feature is not currently in it, it follows that the standard library should eventually grow to include all existing libraries everywhere.
In other words, the ultimate objective is that no one will ever need to link to a third party library ever again.

Is that what you're arguing? I suspect not, so I'm afraid I'll need you to define what you mean by "blank" or "gap". Why is web development a "gap" in the standard library and not, say, CUDA development, or video processing, or any other of the niche problem domains where C++ is applicable? Why does web development get special treatment?

And it's not really even the standards committee's fault if people think C++ is hard. It's our fault as the users.
You're absolutely right. All the times the standard uses the phrases "undefined behavior" and "unspecified behavior" is my fault. All the pre-C++11 code floating around out there is also my fault (I was quite prolific back then).
By "gaps", I mean the missing things that are in most modern languages but which C++ lacks direct support for. It'd be good if they added in those "modern language" things as well as modules, a well-defined ABI, and the other things that the committee is dragging its feet on.

Either way, I'm talking about adding direct support for web development because I just think C++ needs to stay up to date with the times.

And I was talking to @jlb about the difficulty thing. He mentioned it on here before. Are you only reading my posts (and only those parts that you think are directed at you?)?
Last edited on
To paraphrase something Bjarne noted in this year's cppcon keynote, to be teachable, C++ needs a way, out of the box, to write "Hello world" on any of these computers we have in our pockets. The computers that happen to have no console to write to.

helios wrote:
why should HTTP get special treatment? Why not FTP, or SMTP?

Same reason console and named file I/O got special treatment, and not SysV IPC or Unix domain sockets.
Well, streams are generic abstractions. They aren't tied to any particular system or technology, unlike System V IPC, or Unix domain sockets. You would have a point if pthreads had been included and not Windows threads.
Also, C++ has no concept of "console".
Registered users can post here. Sign in or register to post.
Pages: 12