Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:15:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Phillips <paulp@go2net.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: the C++ disaster (was Re: Source code - optimised assembler)
In-Reply-To: <3506D351.DCB47578@algroup.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980311110943.8899A-100000@zax>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Indeed it is. But the comment was made with reference to the
> cross-platform stuff. If he thought C++ was a bad idea everywhere, why
> did he restrict the comment to the cross-platform stuff?

Maybe because that was his point -- that introducing C++ into the
cross-platform parts of mozilla was a COLOSSAL mistake, whereas in
the rest it was only a GIGANTIC mistake.  It's just as valid an
interpretation.  There's every reason to restrict those kinds of
comments to the specific subject at hand (portability in this case)
so as not to come off like a langugage bigot.  "C++ sucks" is not
a good way to convince people of anything.  "C++ seriously hindered
mozilla portability" is much better.  It's only diluted by talking
about aspects of C++ irrelevant to the central thesis.

I'm just going to ask him, though.

> If he intended it to be a blanket comment on the utility of C++, why on
> Earth did he qualify it?

See above.  I have to feel that C++ advocacy is really reaching when
it's looking for endorsements by virtue of complaints about specific parts
of C++.  "Well, this guy thinks that features X, Y, and Z of C++ suck,
but that must mean he likes the rest."

-- 
Paul Phillips      | These pages look best if you come over and view them on
Cat Juggler        | my monitor.
<paulp@go2net.com> |     -- the essence of the modern web
+1 206 447 1595    |--------* http://www.go2net.com/people/paulp/ *--------