On 03/26/2018 02:30 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Martin Sehnoutka <msehnout@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 03/26/2018 01:38 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Matěj Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 2018-03-26, 10:52 GMT, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>>> On 03/22/2018 01:40 PM, Daniel Mach wrote: >>>>>> Please read more details on our blog: >>>>>> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/announcement/2018/03/22/dnf-3-announcement/ >>>>> >>>>> “C++ 11 is supported by GCC in RHEL 7 / CentOS 7” — You should >>>>> use Developer Toolset to compile on Red Hat Enterprise Linux >>>>> 7 if you need C++11 support. The system compiler, GCC 4.8, >>>>> has limited support only. >>>> >>>> When switching the programming langauge than I would think there >>>> are some better C-successors than C++, namely Rust? Mad rush of >>>> giving up on 46 years old language and switching to one which is >>>> just 33 years old seems a bit bizarre to me. >>>> >> >> Take a look into the code, it is mostly C with few features from C++. >> >> btw what is the motivation to use GOBjects? Is the libdnf api supposed >> to be consumed by dnf frontend via gi repository? >> > > It was a thought a while ago with libhif, and as part of the final > rationalization for libdnf, it's being dropped. Because libdnf is > going to be in C++, it's going to use SWIG for bindings generation. > Thanks for clarification. >>> >>> I'm okay with not dealing with LLVM for my system package manager, >>> thank you very much. I'd be more open to Rust if Rust also could be >>> built with GCC, and thus supported across literally everything, but no >>> one is investing in that effort. >>> >> >> Well, investment like this will need some justification, not saying that >> dnf should be the one, but you will definitely need a big, important >> project. >> > > Considering all the other "big important things" people don't invest > in anyway, I don't think that'd help any. > >>> And frankly, Rust is harder to program in than C++, and creating >>> bindings is no walk in the park. >>> >> >> Purely personal opinion. You are probably referring to the learning >> curve, which is known to be steep, but after this period it is well >> worth the effort. >> > > Not my personal opinion. That's the opinion of several developers I > know who are working on Rust based projects. Not everyone gets the > benefit of GNOME forcing all the things so that stuff _must_ work. > I don't really get the last sentence. What is GNOME forcing a what must work? >> Regarding the bindings, if libdnf is meant to be used via gir (see my >> question above), then there is already an effort to make this much >> easier (I'm referring to gnome-class). >> > > As I noted earlier in this email, gir is a leftover and is being removed. > -- Martin Sehnoutka | Associate Software Engineer PGP: 5FD64AF5 UTC+1 (CET) RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
