Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2007, 11:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <85lkazuf8o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
- In-Reply-To
- <ABE0ABE82AE84593A2B71B0281F4C814@ntdev.corp.microsoft.com>
Dmitry Kakurin <dmitry.kakurin@gmail.com> writes:
> We've had this theoretical (and IMHO pointless) discussion C vs. C++ > *in general*. > In no way I want to restart it.
Then don't.
Show 7 quoted lines
> Just a very straight-forward usage of only 3 C++ features: > 1. Constructors > 2. Destructors > 3. Better syntax (ext_header.append_ext_header > vs. strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, ) > > The generated code will be exactly the same.
It won't. It will _do_ exactly the same (modulo the tenfold likelihood of compiler bugs) but hardly using the same code.
> Yet the source code becomes more readable and MUCH less error > prone. How is this not a win?
Because it is just your claim that this is more readable.
Show 9 quoted lines
> One (sensible) argument that I've heard in the previous discussion > was: you let a little bit of C++ in and then it gets more and more > complex and the code quality decreases. > This problem is solved by having "quality gates". > Again, *for Git* these quality gates already exist: only few people > have "commit access". > If/when somebody tries to be too fancy, what stops Junio from replying > "we don't use Library-X/C++-feature-Y in Git, please change your code > and resubmit" and throwing that fix away? Nothing.
Well, what stops him from replying "we don't use C++ in Git, please change your code and resubmit"?
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum