httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [post-1.2] proposed api extension mechanism ["Lou D. Langholtz" <>] (fwd)
Date Fri, 02 May 1997 12:31:52 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> I'm concerned that this discussion is based on vapourware - the assertion that
> C++ isn't going to work on most platforms. This is not my experience at all,
> but we really need some hard data. Perhaps we could get together some kind of
> minimal test suite that we can ask people to try, and actually find out what
> the real deal is?

A test suite would work, but it would most likely be something so
basic that it may not prove anything. After all, C works on most
platforms but some require some hoops and weird things to work.
I would guess that based solely on _that_, and that C++ isn't
as pervasive as C, the situation would hardly improve.

For me, the switch to C to C++ (or any real OO language) requires
me to switch my mental gears; to program well in OO, you have to
think OO. It may be that way for many, so we would wind up with
C++ that's really C using some very basic OO concepts (ie: not really
using the full power of C++). Add into the mix the fact that unless
we update all modules, decide that all future modules must be C++
and decide that all "appropriated" code (like sfio or pthreads) to
be used in 2.0 be "ported" to C++, this mental-switching-of-gears
will be going on a lot.

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message