Re: time to rewrite dpkg
Hi Arron,
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> I'm closing this discussion for now.
What you started you can't really stop now. You started a C vs. C++
debate, and it will be a few more posts away until everyone calms down.
> I know what I have in mind, and why C++ is better in this scenario
> than C. But I don't want to incite any more flamage; once again I
> say that I won't be forcing anyone to use this thing. It's only a
> personal project, and if anyone wants to use it after I'm finished,
> they'll be free to.
Well your subject says it all "Time to rewrite dpkg." I'm assuming
that you want to completely rewrite dpkg as a replacement for the
current dpkg. A sort of dpkg2 persay. If your dpkg does eventually
become the new standard, then the language you decide to use is very
important.
> The interoperability subject isn't really a big issue; the base
> libraries could still be done in C for all I care, and I may just do so. But
> C++ is compatible with C, and as such anything that can be wrapped into C
> can be wrapped into C++, or vice versa. In addition, we have CORBA, which is
> extremely friendly towards C++ implementations, and much more powerful than
> common interop mechanisms with conventional languages such as RPC.
IMHO. What the best thing to do is write your libdpkg in C. Remember
C is still the standard language for Unix. And it will also allow a
larger number of languages to possibily use those library calls. If
this library were written in C++ you'll end up writing C wrappers,
just so languages like perl can interface with it cleanly. It's your
project and you can do what you like, but I believe that libdpkg
should definately be written in C.
If you want to use C++ for he actual dpkg, then you can make C++
wrappers around libdpkg for that. C++ has problems, its size is one
of them. The other is, C++ is in a constant state of flux.
--
Dan Nguyen | It is with true love as it is with ghosts;
nguyend7@msu.edu | everyone talks of it, but few have seen it.
dnn@debian.org | -La Rochefocauld, Maxims
25 2F 99 19 6C C9 19 D6 1B 9F F1 E0 E9 10 4C 16
Reply to: