Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library.

From: Dmitry Kakurin <dmitry.kakurin@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 7, 2007, 01:08 UTC
Message-ID: <a1bbc6950709061808q85cf75co75f2331dc2bdbcbe@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709070135361.5626@evo.linux-foundation.org>

On 9/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>
>
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
> >
> > As dinosaurs (who code exclusively in C) are becoming extinct, you
> > will soon find yourself alone with attitude like this.
>
> Unlike you, I actually gave reasons for my dislike of C++, and pointed to
> examples of the kinds of failures that it leads to.

As I said, it's a matter of believes. As such, any reasoning and arguing will be endless and pointless, as for any other religious issue.

> You, on the other hand, have given no sane reasons *for* using C++.

I'll give you reasons why to use C++ for Git (not why C++ is better for any project in general, as that again would be pointless):

1. Good String class will make code much more readable (and
significantly shorter)
2. Good Buffer class - same reason
3. Smart pointers and smart handles to manage memory and
file/socket/lock handles.

As it is right now, it's too hard to see the high-level logic thru this endless-busy-work of micro-managing strings and memory.

> The fact is, git is better than the other SCM's. And good taste (and C) is
> one of the reasons for that.

IMHO Git has a brilliant high-level design (object database, using hashes, simple and accessible storage for data and metadata). Kudos to you! The implementation: a mixture of C and shell scripts, command line interface that has evolved bottom-up is so-so.

> and comparing C to assembler just shows that you don't have a friggin idea
> about what you're talking about.

I don't see myself comparing assembler to C anywhere. I was pointing out that I've been programming in different languages (many more actually) and observed bad developers writing bad code in all of them. So this quality "bad developer" is actually language-agnostic :-).

-- 
- Dmitry