This discussion comes up every so often. I don't see that anything has changed.
There hasn't been any interest from the maintainers to switch and it would be a major undertaking to do this. Getting the consensus and convincing everybody to come on board would be a huge undertaking in itself. You can't force anybody, so you would have to provide clear and compelling evidence for real benefits. You're up against a crowd that are aware of all the C++ language features and still said no. I do recognize that some oo feature found in C++(polymorphism, exception handling, interfaces, etc.) are implemented more or less elegantly in OpenOCD compared to being supported in the language. Personally I think that exception handling and resource tracking would be the greatest wins. A language defined OO mechanism (subclassing, interfaces) would also be nice. I actually think with exception handling and resource tracking done right, we could see a *tiny* improvement in performance of critical functions. I use Java, C++ and C across various projects. For OpenOCD we could do worse than C. Ada anyone? :-) At this point I just don't see anything that would compel us to switch. Zach has been talking about libopenocd and one of the bindings could be the language of your choice though. I kinda hope that openocd will stay a core library that centers around interfaces, targets and scripting for the targets rather than growing out of all proportions to cover lots of other more or less related subject matter. -- Øyvind Harboe US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00 http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
