Instead of introducing this strict language rule, I suggest to consider
this restriction case by case with some principles.
One of the principles should be that our codes can be easily ported to
as many platforms as possible. Obviously ANSI C has more compatibility
on multi platforms and is much easier to support for platform provider
than C++, and because we have few native codes in classlib written by
c++ so far, it's not a bad idea that we consider ANSI C as the first
choice to implement native codes in classlib.
And of course, if someday in some cases, the implementation by C++ is
obviously much better(elegant, simple, high performance, or anything
else) than counterpart by C, so that the compatibility/complexity issue
introduced can be ignored, I have no objection to use C++.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
I'm OK with this change in the jaasnix.
As for the whole classlib, I'm afraid that having such a strict
language rule at this
point might hold some potential contributors.
Thanks,
Mikhail
On 2/14/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexey Petrenko wrote:
You suggest not to use C++ in Harmony at all?
As Geir says elsewhere, I mean in classlib in particular.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
