Andy Parkins <andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Friday 2007 September 07, David Kastrup wrote: > > (Disclaimer: I'm certainly not joining the "C++ for git" chant; this reply is > merely to the statements made about C++ in David's message). > >> The problem with C++ is that every C++ developer has his own style, >> and reuse is an illusion within that style. Take a look at classes >> implementing matrix arithmetic: there are as many around as the day is >> long, and all of them are incompatible with one another. > > One could say the same about any API. "Take a look at that C > library libXYZ - it does exactly the same thing as libPQR but all > the function calls and structures are different. Conclusion: C is > shit". Obviously nonsense. The difference is that you can pass structures from one library into another with tolerable efficiency. Because there are only basically 2 ways to lay out a two-dimensional array of floats. >> With regard to programming styles, C++ does not support multiple >> inheritance. For a single project grown from a single start, you >> can > > Multiple inheritance is the spawn of the devil, but C++ _does_ > support it. What about "With regard to programming styles" did you not understand? I was not talking about a technical feature at class level, but about code merging from multiple sources. > I would imagine the reason people often turn up wanting to rewrite > Linux and git in C++ is because they are so object oriented in > nature already and it's natural to think "wouldn't this be even > better if I wrote it in an object oriented language"? Maybe, maybe > not, but why bother? Maintainability and extensibility certainly are valid arguments for rewrites. But C++ does not really shine in that regard. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
