[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: C++ (was: parser)
I couldn't agree more...
I also encourage people to get some idea on how the performance changes
for the final implementation...C compilers tend to generate faster code in
machines.....but of course the compiler can help much if you code it
Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> 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.