We've had this theoretical (and IMHO pointless) discussion C vs. C++ *in
general*.
In no way I want to restart it. But *very specifically*, and *for Git*:
We already have strbuf "class" to do string/buffer manipulations.
Kudos to Pierre Habouzit for doing the refactoring work!
Now, what I fail to understand is how this:
static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
struct strbuf ext_header;
strbuf_init(&ext_header, 0);
strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, "comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40);
write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len);
strbuf_release(&ext_header);
}
is better than this:
static void write_global_extended_header(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
strbuf ext_header;
ext_header.append_ext_header("comment", sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40);
write_entry(NULL, NULL, 0, ext_header.buf, ext_header.len);
}
?
Note, there is no Boost/multiple inheritance/template
metaprogramming/std::string/whatever-else-scares-you-in-C++ in the second
piece of code.
Just a very straight-forward usage of only 3 C++ features:
1. Constructors
2. Destructors
3. Better syntax (ext_header.append_ext_header vs.
strbuf_append_ext_header(&ext_header, )
The generated code will be exactly the same.
Yet the source code becomes more readable and MUCH less error prone. How is
this not a win?
One (sensible) argument that I've heard in the previous discussion was: you
let a little bit of C++ in and then it gets more and more complex and the
code quality decreases.
This problem is solved by having "quality gates".
Again, *for Git* these quality gates already exist: only few people have
"commit access".
If/when somebody tries to be too fancy, what stops Junio from replying "we
don't use Library-X/C++-feature-Y in Git, please change your code and
resubmit" and throwing that fix away? Nothing.
- Dmitry
-
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
