Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
And thus spake Daniel James Patterson, on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 09:30:31AM +1000:
> On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in C++!
> >
>
> There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I think an OO
> methodology would work well in this case simply due to the maintainability
> factor.
>
> <gasp> We could do it in .....ADA!</gasp>
One thing that people seem to be forgetting (not necessarily you, but
I figured this was a good time to pipe in) is that it is desirable for
dpkg to 1) have a small footprint and 2) have few depencies.
I see the second as more important, because fewer dependencies mean
fewer chances to screw something up that will break dpkg (as we've
seen with C++ libraries breaking apt, etc).
--
Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_
Reply to: