From: Dmitry Kakurin Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:42:00 GMT Subject: C++ *for Git* Message-ID: We've had this theoretical (and IMHO pointless) discussion C vs. C++ *in general*. In no way I want to restart it. But *very specifically*, and *for Git*: We already have strbuf "class" to do string/buffer manipulations. Kudos to Pierre Habouzit for doing the refactoring work! Now, what I fail to understand is how this: static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1) { struct strbuf ext_header; strbuf_init(&ext_header, 0); strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, "comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40); write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len); strbuf_release(&ext_header); } is better than this: static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1) { strbuf ext_header; ext_header.append_ext_header("comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40); write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len); } ? Note, there is no Boost/multiple inheritance/template metaprogramming/std::string/whatever-else-scares-you-in-C++ in the second piece of code. 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. Yet the source code becomes more readable and MUCH less error prone. How is this not a win? 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. - Dmitry