On 11/24/10 17:53, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/24/2010 10:40 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> Well the problem is the 10% you are talking about is another 30% loss >> because the code is now practically unreadable, plus you open up the can >> of worms that people will start using some of the totally broken >> features of C++. > > Did you look at my code or Avi's code? Yes I looked at Avi's patch before commenting, it is unreadable! I have no clue what is going on in that code. Random use of :: and <bleh> which makes no sense whatsoever. > Look at my code and then tell me it's practically unreadable. > > http://git.qemu.org/qemupp.git/tree/test/test-mc146818a.cpp Looked at that, and there is nothing in that file that couldn't been done just as cleanly in pure C. >> Sure you can try hard to make sure they don't sneak in, >> but down the line they will, and at that point the codebase is totally >> ruined. >> >> Avi's unittest code is a perfect example of code that is unreadable for >> a C programmer. Or to quote a smart man 'the code is clear as perl!'. >> So you have now lost or at least crippled half your developer base, >> making it way harder for them to contribute something useful. >> >> This is a big step in the wrong direction :( > > I wouldn't have written the unittest code to use classes or exceptions > at all. I don't think it's a good fit. I don't see qemupp being a good fit either :( Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
