libclc - from Boost thread

[Richard Heathfield]

boa said:

Nothing happened outside clc that made the project fail, at least not as
far as I'm concerned. Quite the opposite, actually.

Then I can only conclude that the information on why the project failed is
already public, so what's the harm in discussing it in public?

 

[William Ahern]

Any chance you might publish said libraries?

I'm still working on packaging them up. The compat and utility
libraries I've built at work aren't worth releasing in their current
forms. I did rewrite a memory allocation interface library:

http://www.25thandclement.com/~william/projects/libarena.html

libarena is quite stable. It went through a few iterations at work. Then
on my own time I did a complete rewrite.

Other stuff is scattered amongst libevnet, libmime and some other projects.

 

[Peter Shaggy Haywood]

Groovy hepcat pete was jivin' on Wed, 10 May 2006 18:40:49 GMT in
comp.lang.c.
Re: libclc - from Boost thread's a cool scene! Dig it!

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield a écrit :
Marco said:
What were the goals of [libclc]?

I think the whole idea was fundamentally flawed.

I don't think the idea was flawed. But the execution sure was. Most
of us thought it was a good idea at the time. But few of us got
involved, and those who did just lost interest when things got out of
hand. We should have remembered the addage, "Keep it simple, stupid!"

I didn't see that libclc was worth learning.

In the end you were right. But it would have been worth it, had it
all worked out and been what it was meant to be.

Learning libclc doesn't excuse you
from learning the standard library.

Of course not! Who says it does? It was an add-on, based on the
standard library, not a replacement, obviously.

And if you know the standard library, then you can write libclc.

Basically, yeah. But having a portable library of useful routines
that implement commonly used functionality means you don't have to
reinvent the wheel. And it means that newbies have something to learn
from. It also means, since it's a community based project, that it is
reviewed, critiqued, suggested, added to, corrected, bug-fixed,
cleaned up and made as robust as practical.

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?