After getting ALL boost installed in my home PC, I realised that it's license is wonderfully permisive.



This made me create this little subset of boost headers, allowing PolyVox to compile without neither C++0x nor the full boost library.

It's easier, I think.

That's great, but unfortunatly you are chasing a moving target! I've just started using std::function and std::hash for some pathfinding code I'm about to announce.

Actually, I thought that the VS2008 Service Pack added support for a number of C++0x features but I didn't get them working. Might be worth looking into if you don't want to use Boost...

Oh... fuck...

Well, at least pathfinding is not mandatory =p
Also, I think I still have some code for it and it certainly doesn't require external dependencies, only a little tweaking to work with your volumes...

Still, I'd love to see PolyVox free of the C++0x oppression =p
Maybe I could roll some low level standard C++ code as an alternative for us oldschoolers

Well this is true, the pathfinding stuff uses templates again so it's mostly in headers files... I don't think you'll need function/hash to compile unless you actually use the pathfinder.

Come on, embrace the future!

There's three options to use C++0x that I know of.

First, boost. STL was one of the slowest implementations of algorithms I've known and boost works with it. Also, templates make messy, undebuggeable code. That a full installation of it requires 1.5 Gb is a pain in the ass, too. My netbook has 4 Gb of hard drive, after all...

Second, VS2010. It's slower than Eclipse. And that's in a dual core. In my EEEPC's Celeron 630 Mhz, I'm not even trying.

Third, gcc 4.3 (I think). If you keep using stuff from the future, I'll have to use something like QT Creator and Scons to feel as confortable as in VS2008.


I think that time dependant code (Such as pathfinding) should be as low level as possible. It HAS to be FAST.

C++ was about fast OO low level programming. It's no surprise that both the compilers and the debuggers don't understand half of what is going on.
For high level programming, other languages fare out better.

Well I was half-kidding about embracing the future, but it's also I serious point I guess. C++0x is not even officially standardised, but it does provide some really handy features. I'm not about to use any of the language changes (like auto, etc), but something like function is a nice way of handling callbacks.

I'll try to keep the use of C++0x to a minimum, and make sure it works with Boost as an alternative. I guess there's more people working with VS2008 than I realised