[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: C++ (was: parser)
At 04:15 PM 6/18/99 +0000, Predrag Balorda wrote:
>It would be a monumental task of actually converting everything to C++,
>but I guess we could actually convert it bit by bit.
Why C++? Why not Objective C? or Ada? or Java? or Perl?
All are viable languages for implementing LDAP. So is C. We can
ponder what would have been better all day long, but the fact is
that OpenLDAP is, for better or worse, written in C. I do not
consider it wise to switch implementation languages unless the
current language is not viable. I also do not think it wise to
have a the implementation to depend upon multiple languages.
I, however, would welcome and encourge efforts to develop an
LDAP API for other languages. For object oriented languages,
I would suggest using the draft IETF Java API spec as a design guide.
Our existing C API could be leveraged to facilate implementation.
However, changing the base implementation language from C to
another language makes very little sense. Our problems are
not with C, they are with inadequate C code. The solution is not
to replace the language used, but to modify our code as needed
to resolve the issues.
>Change the compiler from C to C++
Try "env CC=g++ ./configure" and see how far you get.
>(C++ being able to compile C code)
This is not true! C++ can only compile a subset of Standard C code.
>And no, religious wars will not be tolerated, only constructive
>comments please.
But you have not presented anything but religious arguments for
rewriting OpenLDAP in C++. You, in effect, have said C++ is
righteous and C is evil. Guess I must be a pagan.
>P.S. if noone has noticed yet I am also mentioning a parser somewhere in
>the text of the original message *hint*
Because it much easier for people to debate what would have
been nice and/or what would be nice than it is to comment on
the nice work folks have done.
Kurt