RFD: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform

Discussion in 'C++' started by Tomas O hEilidhe, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    unmoderated group comp.lang.c++.cross-platform

    This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
    unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.c++.cross-platform.


    NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform

    comp.lang.c++.cross-platform Cross-platform libraries and programming in C++




    RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform

    There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its discussion
    is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how the language
    works, and how you work with the language's standard libraries). More
    higher-level discussions such as working with wireless internet or
    interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite out of place there, so a
    group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform would be quite convenient.

    The purpose of the newsgroup would be for people to discuss and inquire
    about cross-platform C++ libraries, and also about cross-platform C++
    programming techniques in general.


    TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:

    Regularly, there does be postings to comp.lang.c++ asking what's the
    best cross-platform library to use for things like User Graphical
    Interfaces. Also, you get people asking how to interface with a COM
    port, or how to eject a CD drive using code. Such posts are deemed by
    the majority at comp.lang.c++ to be off-topic because the C++ Standard
    does not deal with such things as COM ports and CD drives. These
    inquiries would find a much warmer home at comp.lang.c++.cross-platform.


    CHARTER:

    comp.lang.c++.cross-platform is an unmoderated newsgroup which will
    serve as a forum for discussing cross-platform C++ libraries and
    cross-platform C++ programming techniques. Topics that may be discussed
    include:

    - Inquiries as to whether a particular library exists, or a list
    of suitable libraries for a given task.

    - Discussions of whether a particular library is any good, or if
    it should be avoided in favour of a different library.

    - Cross-platform programming techniques in general.

    - Particular libraries, how to work with them and how they
    work internally.





    PROCEDURE:

    For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:

    http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation

    Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
    resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
    relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups in
    which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best
    method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.

    All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
    To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.

    If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
    may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
    that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.

    We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
    to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
    keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID
    (e.g., Barney Fife, <>).
    Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
    evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.




    DISTRIBUTION:

    This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

    news.announce.newgroups (moderated)
    news.groups.proposals (moderated)
    comp.lang.c++


    PROPONENT:

    Tomas O hEilidhe <>



    CHANGE HISTORY:

    2007-12-05 1st RFD
    Tomas O hEilidhe, Dec 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Peter J Ross Guest

    [Please note that I'm preserving the crosspost to comp.lang.c++, which
    I don't read. Readers of that group may wish to reply to my comments;
    if so, I won't see them unless they're [cross]posted in news.groups.

    In news.announce.newgroups on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:56:18 -0600, Tomas O
    hEilidhe <> wrote:

    > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > unmoderated group comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >
    > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
    > unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.c++.cross-platform.
    >
    >
    > NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >
    > comp.lang.c++.cross-platform Cross-platform libraries and programming in C++


    There's no use in repeating "cross-platform" and "c++" in the
    newsgroup's description. Instead, you should construct a description
    around relevant keywords that don't appear in the newsgroup's name, in
    order to assist people who are searching for such topics. "libraries"
    and "programming" are good examples of useful keywords; perhaps you
    can find some others. "language" is one that comes to mind.

    It's also conventional for the description to end with a full stop
    (alias period). There's no very defensible reason for this convention,
    but there's no harm in observing it if there's any risk that the
    group's propagation might be harmed otherwise, and if you have enough
    space to include it.

    > RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >
    > There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its discussion
    > is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how the language
    > works, and how you work with the language's standard libraries). More
    > higher-level discussions such as working with wireless internet or
    > interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite out of place there, so a
    > group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform would be quite convenient.


    Have you consulted the users of CL.c++ before this RFD? Perhaps they
    don't object to such discussions appearing in their group, or perhaps
    such discussions aren't common enough to justify a newsgroup of their
    own.

    > The purpose of the newsgroup would be for people to discuss and inquire
    > about cross-platform C++ libraries, and also about cross-platform C++
    > programming techniques in general.
    >
    >
    > TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
    >
    > Regularly, there does be postings to comp.lang.c++ asking what's the
    > best cross-platform library to use for things like User Graphical
    > Interfaces. Also, you get people asking how to interface with a COM
    > port, or how to eject a CD drive using code. Such posts are deemed by
    > the majority at comp.lang.c++ to be off-topic because the C++ Standard
    > does not deal with such things as COM ports and CD drives. These
    > inquiries would find a much warmer home at comp.lang.c++.cross-platform.


    If c++ doesn't take cognisance of such things, why is "c++" in the
    newsgroup name?

    Have you considered a "cross-platform" group that isn't restricted to
    c++? I don't know if such a group would be a better or worse idea than
    yours; I just think that it ought to be considered.

    > CHARTER:
    >
    > comp.lang.c++.cross-platform is an unmoderated newsgroup which will
    > serve


    Use the present tense in charters, not the future tense. If the group
    is created, it will exist as a reality in the present, not a potential
    in the future.

    "...an unmoderated newsgroup which serves..."

    > as a forum for discussing cross-platform C++ libraries and
    > cross-platform C++ programming techniques. Topics that may be discussed
    > include:
    >
    > - Inquiries as to whether a particular library exists, or a list
    > of suitable libraries for a given task.
    >
    > - Discussions of whether a particular library is any good, or if
    > it should be avoided in favour of a different library.
    >
    > - Cross-platform programming techniques in general.
    >
    > - Particular libraries, how to work with them and how they
    > work internally.


    This is too technical for me, since I'm not a programmer, but I hope
    that somebody else can help you. I notice, however, that
    "cross-platform techniques in general" seems to envisage discussion of
    languages other than c++.

    > For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
    >
    > http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
    >
    > Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
    > resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
    > relevant threads in that newsgroup.


    I object to posting in news.groups.proposals, because I object to
    having two newsgroups for the same topic, and I prefer to use the
    long-established, well-propagated group. You, of course, are free to
    read comments in one group, both groups, or neither.

    You should be aware also that new Big-8 groups are no longer
    automatically well-propagated. You and other others of a new group
    will probably have to negotiate with news admins yourself if you want
    better propagation than you'd find in alt.*.

    --
    PJR :)
    Peter J Ross, Dec 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Default User Guest

    Peter J Ross wrote:

    > In news.announce.newgroups on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:56:18 -0600, Tomas O
    > hEilidhe <> wrote:


    > > RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    > >
    > > There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its
    > > discussion is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how
    > > the language works, and how you work with the language's standard
    > > libraries). More higher-level discussions such as working with
    > > wireless internet or interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite
    > > out of place there, so a group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    > > would be quite convenient.

    >
    > Have you consulted the users of CL.c++ before this RFD? Perhaps they
    > don't object to such discussions appearing in their group, or perhaps
    > such discussions aren't common enough to justify a newsgroup of their
    > own.


    They do object. The outline for topicality is found in the newgroup FAQ:

    <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9>

    > > Regularly, there does be postings to comp.lang.c++ asking what's the
    > > best cross-platform library to use for things like User Graphical
    > > Interfaces. Also, you get people asking how to interface with a COM
    > > port, or how to eject a CD drive using code. Such posts are deemed
    > > by the majority at comp.lang.c++ to be off-topic because the C++
    > > Standard does not deal with such things as COM ports and CD drives.
    > > These inquiries would find a much warmer home at
    > > comp.lang.c++.cross-platform.

    >
    > If c++ doesn't take cognisance of such things, why is "c++" in the
    > newsgroup name?


    There's the language itself (with its standard library), and libraries
    that have a C++ API (application programming interface). The former is
    the topic of discussion on CLC++, the latter is what the proposal is
    about.

    Personally, I think it's a poor idea that will result in a little-used
    newsgroup, if ever passed.




    Brian
    Default User, Dec 5, 2007
    #3
  4. Default User wrote:
    > Peter J Ross wrote:
    >
    >> [..]
    >> If c++ doesn't take cognisance of such things, why is "c++" in the
    >> newsgroup name?

    >
    > There's the language itself (with its standard library), and libraries
    > that have a C++ API (application programming interface). The former is
    > the topic of discussion on CLC++, the latter is what the proposal is
    > about.
    >
    > Personally, I think it's a poor idea that will result in a little-used
    > newsgroup, if ever passed.


    I second that, although I don't possess the eloquence required to
    express the reasoning behind my disagreement with this proposal.

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Dec 5, 2007
    #4
  5. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Peter J Ross Guest

    In news.groups on 5 Dec 2007 22:58:35 GMT, Default User
    <> wrote:

    > Peter J Ross wrote:
    >
    >> In news.announce.newgroups on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:56:18 -0600, Tomas O
    >> hEilidhe <> wrote:

    >
    >> > RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >> >
    >> > There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its
    >> > discussion is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how
    >> > the language works, and how you work with the language's standard
    >> > libraries). More higher-level discussions such as working with
    >> > wireless internet or interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite
    >> > out of place there, so a group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >> > would be quite convenient.

    >>
    >> Have you consulted the users of CL.c++ before this RFD? Perhaps they
    >> don't object to such discussions appearing in their group, or perhaps
    >> such discussions aren't common enough to justify a newsgroup of their
    >> own.

    >
    > They do object.


    At leat you do, apparently.

    > The outline for topicality is found in the newgroup FAQ:
    >
    > <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9>


    Of the suggested alternative groups, comp.programming seems to me to
    be the only one that fits, and it's perhaps too generic to be useful.

    I'd be interested to hear answers from comp.lang.c++ users to these
    questions:

    1. Do you discuss cross-platform c++ programming, as defined by the
    proposed charter of the proposed group, in comp.lang.c++?

    2. If so, would you prefer to discuss it in a dedicated group instead
    of in comp.lang.c++?

    3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?

    4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?

    Thank you for your time.

    --
    PJR, doing the work the Bambies don't do :)
    Peter J Ross, Dec 5, 2007
    #5
  6. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Default User Guest

    Peter J Ross wrote:

    > In news.groups on 5 Dec 2007 22:58:35 GMT, Default User
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Peter J Ross wrote:


    > >> Perhaps they don't object to such discussions appearing in their
    > >> group


    > > They do object.

    >
    > At leat you do, apparently.


    Well, enough object that it made it's way into the FAQs.

    > > The outline for topicality is found in the newgroup FAQ:
    > >
    > > <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9>

    >
    > Of the suggested alternative groups, comp.programming seems to me to
    > be the only one that fits, and it's perhaps too generic to be useful.


    That's probably the case, but I don't personally think there's a lot of
    desire for true cross-platform development. There's some, but not
    enough to drive a comp. newsgroup.

    For the most part, the off-topic posts were get are specific to a
    certain platform. These people are best off in (and usually directed
    towards) a platform-specific newsgroup.

    > I'd be interested to hear answers from comp.lang.c++ users to these
    > questions:
    >
    > 1. Do you discuss cross-platform c++ programming, as defined by the
    > proposed charter of the proposed group, in comp.lang.c++?


    Not usually, at least outside of standard C++, which is cross-platform.
    The closest we come is the Boost library, which provides some
    cross-platform capability. Elements of Boost are on the way towards
    standardization.

    > 2. If so, would you prefer to discuss it in a dedicated group instead
    > of in comp.lang.c++?


    Somewhere else, anyway. As I said, I think there's inadequate interest
    in the subject to warrant a newsgroup, at least one at this level.

    > 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    > newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?


    It's off-topic, as topicality is defined by newsgroup consensus and
    codified in the FAQs. Off-topic posts tend to breed more. It's felt by
    many that the most sensible approach is to stay with standard C++ as
    the main topic of the newsgroup. Not all agree.

    > 4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    > discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?


    Not off-hand.




    Brian
    Default User, Dec 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Peter J Ross wrote:
    > [..]
    > I'd be interested to hear answers from comp.lang.c++ users to these
    > questions:
    >
    > 1. Do you discuss cross-platform c++ programming, as defined by the
    > proposed charter of the proposed group, in comp.lang.c++?


    We discuss portable programming. Cross-platform implies that some
    platforms are covered, but [usually] not all. C++ is not a cross-
    platform language. It's a language for no specific platform, it
    is platformless.

    > 2. If so, would you prefer to discuss it in a dedicated group instead
    > of in comp.lang.c++?


    I honestly don't care where they do it. I agree with Brian that
    the proposed group would most likely be almost dead. At least
    I'm not going to subscribe.

    > 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    > newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?


    Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    which there is 'comp.object', for example).

    There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
    somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
    is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
    compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
    not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.

    > 4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    > discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?


    I am not sure. If the discussion is about the merits of any
    particular cross-platform library, regardless what language it is
    accessed/used from, then depending on the functional area of the
    library, it may or may not exist. For example, for graphics there
    is 'comp.graphics.api.*' hierarchy.

    If the discussion is about the C++ aspects of the library that
    does have C++ bindings, it most likely doesn't exist. However,
    all my experience tells me that those discussions are, in their
    root, either C++ langauge discussions, and then they belong in
    'comp.lang.c++', or they are functionality-specific, and then
    C++ has really nothing to do with it.

    Creating the "no-man's land" where some issues of cross-platform
    development specific to C++ are going to be discussed is what we
    call "pulling them by the ears". In most cases for any topic
    you can think of, there is already a group; it's just the matter
    of finding the appropriate one.

    I would say that there really are no issues of cross-platform
    C++ development. They are either C++ issues, or they are platform
    specific issues, or they are software engineering issues, or they
    are limited to a particular functional area (GUI, network, etc.).
    For all those there are groups already in existence.

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Dec 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Aratzio Guest

    On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:55:10 -0500, in news.groups, "Victor Bazarov"
    <> constrained the world by uttering:

    <snip>

    >Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    >discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    >which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    >specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    >groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    >which there is 'comp.object', for example).
    >
    >There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
    >somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
    >is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
    >compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
    >not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.
    >


    Do you (the c++ usenet community) use meta tags in your in your
    subject lines to delineate the discussions?

    If the proposed group would be DOA, that indicates you and Brian
    believe there to be a limited quantity of discussion with respect to
    the proposed subject. Could a more simple soulution be the use of meta
    tags within the current group? Or is this more of a Camel's nose issue
    and could open the group to a greater level of off topic discussion?

    The quandry being, if there is sufficient discussion to affect the
    overall noise level then there probably is sufficient evidence to
    support the proposal. If there is not sufficient discussion to
    adversely affect the current group then there needs to be an
    accomodation made to support the subset that wish to discuss the
    cross-platform issues.
    Aratzio, Dec 6, 2007
    #8
  9. Aratzio wrote:
    > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:55:10 -0500, in news.groups, "Victor Bazarov"
    > <> constrained the world by uttering:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    >> discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    >> which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    >> specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    >> groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    >> which there is 'comp.object', for example).
    >>
    >> There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
    >> somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
    >> is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
    >> compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
    >> not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.
    >>

    >
    > Do you (the c++ usenet community) use meta tags in your in your
    > subject lines to delineate the discussions?


    Not really. Pretty much the only one used is "[OT]" to indicate
    off-topic discussions, although we could live without them (the
    discussions, not tags).

    > If the proposed group would be DOA, that indicates you and Brian
    > believe there to be a limited quantity of discussion with respect to
    > the proposed subject. Could a more simple soulution be the use of meta
    > tags within the current group?


    That would be inviting all kinds of meta tags, so soon enough we'll
    see [Windows] or [GCC] or [Browser] or [GUI] there, which are all OT
    at this time and all have other newsgroups or Web forums to serve
    them.

    > Or is this more of a Camel's nose issue
    > and could open the group to a greater level of off topic discussion?


    You got it.

    > The quandry being, if there is sufficient discussion to affect the
    > overall noise level then there probably is sufficient evidence to
    > support the proposal. If there is not sufficient discussion to
    > adversely affect the current group then there needs to be an
    > accomodation made to support the subset that wish to discuss the
    > cross-platform issues.


    There is also the matter of tolerance levels. I know of several
    newsgroups where OT posts (*usually* tagged) are quite tolerated
    mostly because the community is laid back, spending their leisure
    time there; nobody's in a rush, the time is of no importance, maybe.
    c.l.c++ is not like that.

    OTOH, it is my true belief that *there are no cross-platform
    issues* to discuss. They are either language issues, and then they
    belong in comp.lang.c++, or they are platform issues, and then they
    belong to the corresponding platform newsgroup. The desire to
    discuss the merits (or ways to use) any particular cross-platform
    library (even if those are C++ specific) is usually due to either
    inability to utilise the existing means/venues (like maillists or
    web forums) or their [perceived] inadequacy (and hence the refusal
    to use them).

    My feeling can still be expressed by a <shrug>. If 'c.l.c++.c-p'
    is the answer to somebody's prayers, go ahead, create it. Does it
    cost anything to create? Most likely not. Will it be viable and
    visited by more than one person (who had enough spare time on his
    hands to scare up a proposal)? I doubt it.

    Will its creations affect me personally, and so, how? Most likely
    yes, positively, because now I will have another trash bin where
    OT posts that don't belong to 'c.l.c++' can be disposed into. Is
    that good? I am not sure. I've seen people come back from some
    specialised forums just to claim that those are all but dead and
    that they have nowhere else to ask their OT question...

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Dec 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Victor Bazarov wrote:
    > Peter J Ross wrote:


    >> 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    >> newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?

    >
    > Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    > discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    > which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    > specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    > groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    > which there is 'comp.object', for example).


    This is beginning to sound like a NIMBY (not in my backyard) proposal.
    NIMBY groups don't work, because you can't "legislate" where others post.

    B/
    Brian Mailman, Dec 6, 2007
    #10
  11. Brian Mailman wrote:
    > Victor Bazarov wrote:
    >> Peter J Ross wrote:

    >
    >>> 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    >>> newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?

    >>
    >> Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    >> discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    >> which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    >> specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    >> groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    >> which there is 'comp.object', for example).

    >
    > This is beginning to sound like a NIMBY (not in my backyard) proposal.


    Why so? The guy who proposed it is really interested in discussing
    something that doesn't fit in 'comp.lang.c++'. Since he doesn't want
    to accept our recommendations of the [existing] forums where those
    discussions should take place, he's decided to organize a new group
    where he thinks the discussions would be better situated.

    As I understand NIMBY concept, the problem with it is that something
    unpleasant _will_ be in somebody's backyard anyway. And I support
    this particular one simply because it's not in mine. There are
    alternatives to creating the new group. And the most viable is NOT
    to allow those posts in comp.lang.c++, contrary to what you might
    think, but to take them where the already would be accepted. Trust
    me, there _are_ such places.

    > NIMBY groups don't work, because you can't "legislate" where others
    > post.


    Not sure what you mean. What's a "NIMBY group"? And how is it I
    (or we) try to "legislate" what others post?

    The topicality discussion in comp.lang.c++ is a neverending one, and
    often leads to a filty back alley when parties "discover" that c.l.c++
    is in fact *unmoderated*. Nobody legilates anything, and there are no
    real (effective) means of preventing off-topic posts in c.l.c++. And
    those who don't really want to see so much OT here have to clench our
    teeth and tolerate all the Google-originated spam, and posts by
    newbies who don't even read the newsgroup or the FAQ before posting...
    That's life. Yes, opponents of OT posts can complain out loud (and
    they/we do), can write to the offender's ISP (and some do), but those
    mechanisms are, in the end, ineffective.

    For once somebody took initiative to solve it for a narrow set of
    off-topics. He wants to create his own local discussion domain;
    he will feel there like a fish in his own warm pond. Let him!

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Dec 6, 2007
    #11
  12. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Aratzio Guest

    On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:31:03 -0500, in news.groups, "Victor Bazarov"
    <> bloviated:

    >Aratzio wrote:


    <SNIP>

    >
    >> Or is this more of a Camel's nose issue
    >> and could open the group to a greater level of off topic discussion?

    >
    >You got it.

    Pretty much figured that was the issue.

    Thanks.

    Hopefully the board will recognize the issues raised.
    Aratzio, Dec 6, 2007
    #12
  13. On 2007-12-06 00:35, Peter J Ross wrote:
    > In news.groups on 5 Dec 2007 22:58:35 GMT, Default User
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Peter J Ross wrote:
    >>
    >>> In news.announce.newgroups on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:56:18 -0600, Tomas O
    >>> hEilidhe <> wrote:

    >>
    >>> > RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >>> >
    >>> > There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its
    >>> > discussion is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how
    >>> > the language works, and how you work with the language's standard
    >>> > libraries). More higher-level discussions such as working with
    >>> > wireless internet or interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite
    >>> > out of place there, so a group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    >>> > would be quite convenient.
    >>>
    >>> Have you consulted the users of CL.c++ before this RFD? Perhaps they
    >>> don't object to such discussions appearing in their group, or perhaps
    >>> such discussions aren't common enough to justify a newsgroup of their
    >>> own.

    >>
    >> They do object.

    >
    > At leat you do, apparently.


    It is common view among the regulars, perhaps those that do not agree
    move somewhere else or chose to stay quiet.

    >> The outline for topicality is found in the newgroup FAQ:
    >>
    >> <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9>

    >
    > Of the suggested alternative groups, comp.programming seems to me to
    > be the only one that fits, and it's perhaps too generic to be useful.
    >
    > I'd be interested to hear answers from comp.lang.c++ users to these
    > questions:
    >
    > 1. Do you discuss cross-platform c++ programming, as defined by the
    > proposed charter of the proposed group, in comp.lang.c++?


    - Inquiries as to whether a particular library exists, or a list
    of suitable libraries for a given task.

    - Discussions of whether a particular library is any good, or if
    it should be avoided in favour of a different library.

    While perhaps not considered on-topic I would say that in general you
    can get a question about whether a library for a certain task exist, and
    people will usually recommend those that they like. However, a longer
    discussion about the pros and cons of a specific library would most
    certainly be considered off-topic. And so will questions about using the
    libraries.

    - Cross-platform programming techniques in general.

    To be honest, I do not know what these techniques are. The way I see
    things there are two ways of writing cross-platform code, either you
    write standard compliant code or you use one of the cross-platform
    frameworks. If you use the first option you can discuss that in here,
    for the frameworks there exist a number of venues for discussion, though
    not all on usenet.

    - Particular libraries, how to work with them and how they work
    internally.

    As I said, that would be off topic here, but most libraries have their
    own venues of discussion, usually in the form of web-forums or mailing-
    lists, but some might have usenet groups as well (or on topic in some
    other groups).

    > 2. If so, would you prefer to discuss it in a dedicated group instead
    > of in comp.lang.c++?


    For my needs I have always found existing facilities satisfactory.

    > 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    > newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?


    Yes, c.l.c++ is a group with a very high signal to noise ratio (despite
    quite high traffic), and I believe that is the reason why there are so
    many experts gathered here. I have looked in a few other groups
    discussing C++ put they all had much more off-topic traffic and the
    level of expertise was also lower.

    > 4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    > discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?


    I do not know of any specific group that might be used instead, but for
    any question that might be asked in the proposed group I am confident
    that I (or someone else) know of an alternative venue where the question
    would be topical.

    I do not meant to imply that I am against the creation of a new group,
    just that I do not fully understand what exactly will be discussed in it.

    --
    Erik Wikström
    Erik Wikström, Dec 6, 2007
    #13
  14. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Mark Kramer Guest

    In article <fj8uvv$3d1$>,
    Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    >We discuss portable programming. Cross-platform implies that some
    >platforms are covered, but [usually] not all. C++ is not a cross-
    >platform language. It's a language for no specific platform, it
    >is platformless.


    I would say that no language is completely "platformless", but that some
    applications using some languages may be. If you never program anything
    that depends on what platform you are on, most languages (other than
    assembly) are "platformless". Unfortunately many of the most interesting
    things depend on the hardware.

    I also see nothing in the way of C++ being a cross-platform language,
    just as C can be. There is nothing inherent in C++ that makes it
    cross-platform, but I don't think there are any languages that are
    inherently cross-platform.

    However, that has little to do with the proposal. It seems clear to
    me that the proponent is looking for "portable libraries" and not
    "cross-platform libraries".

    >There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
    >somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
    >is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
    >compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
    >not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.


    How does comp.std.c++ fit into this? It is for discussion of Standard C++
    and the libraries. Doesn't a comp.lang.c++ that limits itself to standard
    C++ and the libraries duplicate that group?
    Mark Kramer, Dec 6, 2007
    #14
  15. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Default User Guest

    Mark Kramer wrote:

    > In article <fj8uvv$3d1$>,
    > Victor Bazarov <> wrote:


    > > There are issues that are borderline, no doubt. For example, if
    > > somebody asks, "I have this code, it compiles with <some compiler>,
    > > is it legal, or should I expect problems porting it to a different
    > > compiler?" While a particular compiler is mentioned, the issue is
    > > not with that compiler. Plenty of other examples can be found.

    >
    > How does comp.std.c++ fit into this? It is for discussion of Standard
    > C++ and the libraries. Doesn't a comp.lang.c++ that limits itself to
    > standard C++ and the libraries duplicate that group?



    That's incorrect. comp.std.c++ is about the standard, not the use of
    the language defined in the standard. This is covered in the csc++ FAQ:

    <http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html>




    Brian
    Default User, Dec 6, 2007
    #15
  16. Tomas O hEilidhe

    peter koch Guest

    On 6 Dec., 00:35, Peter J Ross <> wrote:
    > In news.groups on 5 Dec 2007 22:58:35 GMT, Default User
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > Peter J Ross wrote:

    >
    > >> In news.announce.newgroups on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:56:18 -0600, Tomas O
    > >> hEilidhe <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > RATIONALE: comp.lang.c++.cross-platform

    >
    > >> > There is already a newsgroup called "comp.lang.c++", but its
    > >> > discussion is restricted to elements of the C++ Standard (e.g. how
    > >> > the language works, and how you work with the language's standard
    > >> > libraries). More higher-level discussions such as working with
    > >> > wireless internet or interfacing with a scanner via USB are quite
    > >> > out of place there, so a group such as comp.lang.c++.cross-platform
    > >> > would be quite convenient.

    >
    > >> Have you consulted the users of CL.c++ before this RFD? Perhaps they
    > >> don't object to such discussions appearing in their group, or perhaps
    > >> such discussions aren't common enough to justify a newsgroup of their
    > >> own.

    >
    > > They do object.

    >
    > At leat you do, apparently.
    >
    > > The outline for topicality is found in the newgroup FAQ:

    >
    > > <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9>

    >
    > Of the suggested alternative groups, comp.programming seems to me to
    > be the only one that fits, and it's perhaps too generic to be useful.
    >
    > I'd be interested to hear answers from comp.lang.c++ users to these
    > questions:
    >
    > 1. Do you discuss cross-platform c++ programming, as defined by the
    > proposed charter of the proposed group, in comp.lang.c++?


    I believe we do and that this is on-topic. It is fine (and at least
    accepted) to ask questions such as "is this portable" and can you
    recommend a library for doing Y. This all has to have a C++ context,
    however.
    What is not accepted is to ask questions about specific libraries,
    e.g. asking "How do i get a modal dialog box in WxWindows" or "How do
    i hide the cursor in Windows?". Those questions should be directed to
    the newsgroup of the library/platform. Sometimes, a platform-specific
    question can sneak in, and this is fine with me as long as it is
    primarily a question of C++ content, and not a question about the
    library. An example of such a question could be: "My program crashes
    when i try to hide the cursor in Windows. Is there something wrong
    with the code?" This question would be accepted by me at least, if the
    OP adressed the code surrounding the specific platform (although it
    would be better if the OP could strip the platform code away before
    posting).
    >
    > 2. If so, would you prefer to discuss it in a dedicated group instead
    > of in comp.lang.c++?


    Yes.
    >
    > 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    > newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?


    It does not really inconvene me, and if the question is primarily
    about C++ it would be okay. What I hope not to see is threads about
    e.g. WxWindows. This belongs in another place. More generic questions
    are allright, and certainly so if they relate to questions that could
    interest most C++ users. The more generic the library, the better. As
    an example, I remember discussions about multithreading and garbage
    collection libraries, that I would consider fine.

    >
    > 4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    > discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?


    There are lots of newsgroups discussing specific platforms, but I am
    not aware of a platform that discusses "generic" libraries such as
    "windowing libraries". There probably are groups for e.g. WxWindows
    and X-Windows, but the generic group I have never heard about.

    >
    > Thank you for your time.
    >

    /Peter
    peter koch, Dec 6, 2007
    #16
  17. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Art Deco Guest

    peter koch <> wrote:

    >On 6 Dec., 00:35, Peter J Ross <> wrote:
    >> In news.groups on 5 Dec 2007 22:58:35 GMT, Default User


    [...]

    >> 4, Are you aware of any other newsgroups containing relevant
    >> discussion to which pointers to this RFD could usefully be posted?

    >
    >There are lots of newsgroups discussing specific platforms, but I am
    >not aware of a platform that discusses "generic" libraries such as
    >"windowing libraries". There probably are groups for e.g. WxWindows
    >and X-Windows, but the generic group I have never heard about.


    comp.soft-sys.wxwindows already exists, and seems to be a quite active
    group -- ~1300 posts since the first of October.

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716
    Art Deco, Dec 7, 2007
    #17
  18. Tomas O hEilidhe

    Peter J Ross Guest

    In news.groups on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:56:12 -0800, Brian Mailman
    <> wrote:

    > This is beginning to sound like a NIMBY (not in my backyard) proposal.


    As far as I can tell, that's not why the proponent wants the group.
    The idea seems to have started here:

    Message-ID: <G8k1j.23354$>

    The proponent really wants to use the new group, but nobody else seems
    to be particularly interested.

    --
    PJR :)
    Peter J Ross, Dec 7, 2007
    #18
  19. Victor Bazarov wrote:
    > Brian Mailman wrote:
    >> Victor Bazarov wrote:
    >>> Peter J Ross wrote:

    >>
    >>>> 3. If not, does discussion of cross-platform programming in your
    >>>> newsgroup inconvenience you, and if so how?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does. It creates noise. It's just like any other para-C++
    >>> discussions (e.g. specific compilers and their command lines, for
    >>> which there are usually their own groups, using C++ for programming
    >>> specific OS, for which there certainly are their corresponding
    >>> groups, and even high-level design and governing principles, for
    >>> which there is 'comp.object', for example).

    >>
    >> This is beginning to sound like a NIMBY (not in my backyard) proposal.

    >
    > Why so? The guy who proposed it is really interested in discussing
    > something that doesn't fit in 'comp.lang.c++'.


    OK, if that's so, then it's not a NIMBY proposal.

    B/
    Brian Mailman, Dec 7, 2007
    #19
  20. Peter J Ross wrote:
    > In news.groups on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:56:12 -0800, Brian Mailman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> This is beginning to sound like a NIMBY (not in my backyard) proposal.

    >
    > As far as I can tell, that's not why the proponent wants the group.
    > The idea seems to have started here:
    >
    > Message-ID: <G8k1j.23354$>
    >
    > The proponent really wants to use the new group, but nobody else seems
    > to be particularly interested.


    Well, the stroke group seems to work with only one or two posters who
    don't talk to each other.

    B/
    Brian Mailman, Dec 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. .
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    558
  2. Harald Stowasser
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    679
    Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=
    Jun 27, 2003
  3. .
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    557
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    564
    Paul Rubin
    Oct 23, 2006
  5. Gary L. Burnore

    RFD: comp.lang.c++.misc

    Gary L. Burnore, Mar 31, 2008, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    392
    Michael H
    Apr 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page