Re: Time to rewrite dpkg

[Ossama Othman <othman@cs.wustl.edu>]

On 20 May, Marek Habersack wrote:
 > * Ossama Othman said:
 > > What's not clean about it?  It's a very simple wrapper?  Also, what
 > > doesn't make sense?  It has been taken out of context so you don't know
 > > what it is used for but it conveys the general idea, I think.  I'm
 > Oh, you got me wrong :)) I wasn't talking about the code itself :)). I just
 > don't see any point in creating a C++ library just to create a C wrapper, so
 > that C programs and, say, scripting languages can use it. It is MUCH easier
 > to write it in C at once, especially when nothing justifies using C++. I
 > mean, you can buy a small car - a "shopping bag on wheels" and then buy a
 > new engine just to be able to tow a trailer :)) - it is possible, but not
 > cost-effective and sensible - you can buy a larger and stronger car at once
 > :)). Maybe the example isn't perfect, but it shows what I have in mind :)).

Oh boy, here we go again. :-)  The fact of the matter is that we can go
on debating endlessly about C/C++ virtues.  There are many reasons why
rewriting dpkg in C++ instead of C would be good, and there are many
reasons to stick with C.  It just so happens that I believe that the
advantages of implementing a dpkg rewrite in C++ outweigh the
disadvantages, IMHO.

For an excellent and huge example of a C++ wrapper library in use
take a look at ACE.  Doug Schmidt's web site (papers, etc.) also
provides many advantages of using C++ libraries, in addition to why C++
wrapper libraries have advantages.  The ACE web site is:

	http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html

 > the second one - Ockham's Rule says "chose the simpler approach, the simpler
 > the better"

Thanks! :-)

-Ossama
-- 
Ossama Othman <othman@cs.wustl.edu>
Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St. Louis
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44  74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88  1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26