* Ossama Othman said: > > > 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... > > Yep, I agree. Although, I still like Aaron's idea. Yes, it is nice as a venture, IMHO, but at that point of time it's quite, so to say, impractical... > > > 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... > > Good point. However, now that there is a C++ standard I don't believe > that the state of flux you mention is a major issue. EGCS has been I was referring not to the standard itself (although it has also it's drawbacks - like the lack of standarized name mangling), but rather to it's implementation on the GNU platform, which is now in its young days - it's constantly changing, the features are being added, standard being implemented in more and more detail. This situation will no doubt incurr many changes both in the source code of the programs (new keywords, syntax changed at places, library classes etc.) but also in the generated binaries interfaces - esp in the shared libraries. > fairly stable in terms of existing language feature support. Stuff > like RTTI and exception handling aren't major issues since they can > easily be disabled. But it DOES change the binary representation of the program, esp. name mangling - which is the major headache with C++ right now. > > 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... > > I've never tried Objective C. How is it? Is Objective-C link Me neither - I just saw some code, but no documentation. It was just a sudden idea of building a bridge between the two languages we're discussing. > compatible with standard C? Just curious. AFAIK, it is quite compatible on the binary level - possibly in 100%. > > I'm not convinced this is a good way, but I admire the courage - g'luck from > > me as well :)) > > It certainly does seem like it will be difficult. I am sure Aaron has > thought this thing through, including the friendly opposition of late. Oposition is a minor issue, IMO. What's more important is the compatibility and acceptability of such modification facing the actual needs of the distributuion. Perhaps dpkg, as an application, will gain, but Debian as a distribution will lose - it won't be possible to install it from as wide range of media as now. > BTW, I just want to thank everyone who has been participating in this > discussion for keeping it _friendly_. It can certainly turn into into > a C/C++ flame war but I am glad everyone has been calm and rational. > Thanks again! :-) I second that! It's a very rare virtue among the 'Net denizens :(((( marek
Attachment:
pgpN5WqfMWeUH.pgp
Description: PGP signature