From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199705021231.IAA20258@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [post-1.2] proposed api extension mechanism ["Lou D. Langholtz"
 <sysldl@usi.utah.edu>]    (fwd)
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <9705020948.aa23927@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk> from "Ben Laurie" at
 May 2, 97 09:48:44 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

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
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"