On 13 January 2012 17:39, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 00:17, Sean Wolfe <ether....@gmail.com> wrote: > > hmm I didn't know this, nice to know. Yes, C++ is still enough > > overhead that I wouldn't want to try extending it ... I bet the code > > is a whole lot to try and grok. > > > > When Apache got the LibreOffice project they heavily refactored the > code. As a result, LO is considered less of a monstrosity to hack on > than Open Office. >
Once again, a nitpick. Apache did not get the LibreOffice project, but the Openoffice.org project from Oracle. LibreOffice is a fork of openoffice and a foundation independant from Apache. Work has been done to simplify the code, but I wouldn't say it is much better: they can do a limited amount of job with a limited amount of developpers (mostly old OOo devs). So yes, there are less comments written in german than there used to, but it is still a very old, buggy code in which changing a line causes lots of pain. > That said, if your goal is to "try to extend" an application, then > being written in Java as opposed to C++ would be an advantage, not a > disadvantage. Especially in an application the size of OOo. That said, > only a few dialogues and wizards (none critical) are written in Java. > Most is C++. > > > > It would be nice to have an office suite in a newer language that is > > easier to tinker with. > > Take a look at Calligra, C++ with Qt. It is supposed to be very easy > to extend and port, in fact that was a design goal. > http://calligra-suite.org/ > > -- > Dotan Cohen > > http://what-is-what.com/what_is/python.html >
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
