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

[Tomas O hEilidhe]

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, <[email protected]>).
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 <[email protected]>



CHANGE HISTORY:

2007-12-05 1st RFD

 

[Peter J Ross]

[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

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.*.

 

[Default User]

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


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:

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

 

[Victor Bazarov]

[..]
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

 

[Peter J Ross]

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

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.

 

[Default User]

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


At leat you do, apparently.

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

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

 

[Victor Bazarov]

[..]
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

 

[Aratzio]

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.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

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

 

[Brian Mailman]

Peter J Ross wrote:

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/

 

[Victor Bazarov]

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

 

[Aratzio]

Aratzio wrote:


You got it.

Pretty much figured that was the issue.

Thanks.

Hopefully the board will recognize the issues raised.

 

[Erik Wikström]

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


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.

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.

 

[Mark Kramer]

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?

 

[Default User]

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

 

[peter koch]

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








At leat you do, apparently.



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

 

[Art Deco]

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.

 

[Peter J Ross]

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

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: <[email protected]>

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

 

[Brian Mailman]

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]

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


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

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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/