* Ossama Othman said: > > One alternative that's probably worth considering is improving libdpkg, so > > that Apt and friends can make use of dpkg that way, and provide their own > > front ends however they see fit. > > I don't think that is a "complete" solution. Improving libdpkg would > be good but, as Aaron described, that would just be adding/modifying > code to code that is already "brittle." Well, a complete rewrite and redesign in C would help... > > any language against C based libraries. As far as I'm aware doing the same > > to C++ (or other object-oriented languages) is a pain in the neck. > > C++ libraries aren't bad once you get to know them. If you are It isn't about C++ libraries being bad, or C++ being bad language, but about compatibility and an issue of C++ still being in a state of flux in a GNU world... > > And I don't particularly think it's much of a gain to say "You want > > access to dpkg's internals? Just use C++!". C++ is all well and good, > > but it's not *that* good. > > Hrm. I would have to disagree with you. Using object oriented > techniques certainly makes things easier to maintain, extend and debug. > Using object oriented "design patterns" (see any good book on OO design > patterns), for example, makes code much easier to understand and/or > implement. That's true, but again, the compatibility and unstability of the C++ implementation on the GNU platform is an obstacle. OTOH, we have Objective C... > > > Whether or not the community approves of this, > > > I will pursue it, and let the chips fall where they may. > > > > Good luck, FWIW. I've no doubt you'll need it. > > Indeed. It is an ambitious endeavor but a worthy one nevertheless, > IMHO. Aaron, you've got my support. :) I'm not convinced this is a good way, but I admire the courage - g'luck from me as well :)) regards, marek
Attachment:
pgpRQV8UV0_DS.pgp
Description: PGP signature