Nicolas Pitre pisze: > What limitations? > > I never considered the C language to bare any limitations what so ever. > You can do much more in C, and with way more control and performance, > than with most other languages. The inconvenient is that C requires > better programming skills. > > And C is amenable to object oriented programming just fine.
Now replace "C" with "assembler" - this will still be perfectly true, but are there any sane ppl who write software for PC in assembly? OpenOCD is not limited by its own performance, but with PC - JTAG - target link speed - no need for (doubtful) uber-performance of C. The embedded targets that OpenOCD can be run on are ARM9 minimum, probably with linux, so c'mon please! - what will be the overhead of C++ compared to overhead of a full operating system? The "overhead" of C++ is also doubtful - when you know "how to do it" the overhead will be 0. BTW you also need to know "how to do it" to write C++-in-C, so... What's the point in emulating features that have been standard in C++ for decades? If you don't want to use the C++ features because of "performance degradation" and "overhead" (which actually don't exist when you use OS anyway) why use hundreds of operating system's elements? Why everyone sees only the bad sides of C++ and completely forgets the good ones? Templates? Stronger compilation-time-error-checks? Easier error handling? Easier abstraction? Easier polymorphism? Easier - well - everything? 4\/3!! _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
