On 20 May, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Ossama Othman said:
> > What's not clean about it? It's a very simple wrapper? Also, what
> > doesn't make sense? It has been taken out of context so you don't know
> > what it is used for but it conveys the general idea, I think. I'm
> Oh, you got me wrong :)) I wasn't talking about the code itself :)). I just
> don't see any point in creating a C++ library just to create a C wrapper, so
> that C programs and, say, scripting languages can use it. It is MUCH easier
> to write it in C at once, especially when nothing justifies using C++. I
> mean, you can buy a small car - a "shopping bag on wheels" and then buy a
> new engine just to be able to tow a trailer :)) - it is possible, but not
> cost-effective and sensible - you can buy a larger and stronger car at once
> :)). Maybe the example isn't perfect, but it shows what I have in mind :)).
Oh boy, here we go again. :-) The fact of the matter is that we can go
on debating endlessly about C/C++ virtues. There are many reasons why
rewriting dpkg in C++ instead of C would be good, and there are many
reasons to stick with C. It just so happens that I believe that the
advantages of implementing a dpkg rewrite in C++ outweigh the
disadvantages, IMHO.
For an excellent and huge example of a C++ wrapper library in use
take a look at ACE. Doug Schmidt's web site (papers, etc.) also
provides many advantages of using C++ libraries, in addition to why C++
wrapper libraries have advantages. The ACE web site is:
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html
> the second one - Ockham's Rule says "chose the simpler approach, the simpler
> the better"
Thanks! :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St. Louis
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
