Hi Arron, On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: > I'm closing this discussion for now.
What you started you can't really stop now. You started a C vs. C++ debate, and it will be a few more posts away until everyone calms down. > I know what I have in mind, and why C++ is better in this scenario > than C. But I don't want to incite any more flamage; once again I > say that I won't be forcing anyone to use this thing. It's only a > personal project, and if anyone wants to use it after I'm finished, > they'll be free to. Well your subject says it all "Time to rewrite dpkg." I'm assuming that you want to completely rewrite dpkg as a replacement for the current dpkg. A sort of dpkg2 persay. If your dpkg does eventually become the new standard, then the language you decide to use is very important. > The interoperability subject isn't really a big issue; the base > libraries could still be done in C for all I care, and I may just do so. But > C++ is compatible with C, and as such anything that can be wrapped into C > can be wrapped into C++, or vice versa. In addition, we have CORBA, which is > extremely friendly towards C++ implementations, and much more powerful than > common interop mechanisms with conventional languages such as RPC. IMHO. What the best thing to do is write your libdpkg in C. Remember C is still the standard language for Unix. And it will also allow a larger number of languages to possibily use those library calls. If this library were written in C++ you'll end up writing C wrappers, just so languages like perl can interface with it cleanly. It's your project and you can do what you like, but I believe that libdpkg should definately be written in C. If you want to use C++ for he actual dpkg, then you can make C++ wrappers around libdpkg for that. C++ has problems, its size is one of them. The other is, C++ is in a constant state of flux. -- Dan Nguyen | It is with true love as it is with ghosts; [EMAIL PROTECTED] | everyone talks of it, but few have seen it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -La Rochefocauld, Maxims 25 2F 99 19 6C C9 19 D6 1B 9F F1 E0 E9 10 4C 16