Freddie Chopin a écrit : > 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...
... and this overhead is 0 when you know "how to do it", isn't it? :) More seriously: I don't favor C over C++ or C# or CMaj11 or whatever. However: > 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? A possible retort might be "why does every C+ proponent push C++ as the solution to what may not actually be enough of a problem to require C++ in the first place?" If OpenOCD as it stands does *suffer* from its being written in C, then rewriting it in another language might be *a* solution, and C++ might be *a* language to rewrite it into--as might be, for instance, D. But before offering a solution, my engineer, idealist, spirit suggests identifying the problem(s) first, and determining if their root cause is the programming language used... or not. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
