Re: snapshot available

Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 May 1999, Dancer wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't think of it as 'constantly', but I take your point. I see it
> > as a benefit largely for the assorted binary distributions. You know how
> > many folks out there get it as an RPM and don't have a clue what options
> > it was compiled with or how to go about compiling a copy of their own.
>
> Hmm.. Indeed. I do not know of any simple and portable solution in case of
> distributed binaries/RPMs. If the usage of RPMs is encouraged, then your
> approach is perhaps better, albeit far more complex.
>
> > Q: Are we stuck with it [C] by policy, or just because of size and
> > complexity?
>
> Primarily due to faith reasons (i.e., belief in something for which there
> can be no proof), I guess. The amount of work required for an upgrade is
> also an issue, of course. I'd stopped arguing for C++ migration long time
> ago, but reserve the right to bug people about deficiencies of C. :)

If it were just me, I'd probably gently nudge in the direction of C++,
too :)
Mind you, I routinely run g++ over all my vanilla C code for the more
rigorous checking. It's surprising the brainless bits of code that it
can show up. Besides, I feel that if C code compiles nicely under (say)
g++ then it's probably cleaner and better C code than if it doesn't.

D
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:58 MDT