From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32111 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2008 14:21:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 32099 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2008 14:21:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:20:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A8C98397; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:20:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753C598243; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:20:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOvUu-0004wY-RS; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:20:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? Message-ID: <20080801142048.GA18215@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <20080801131312.GA14712@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:46:25PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The idea is that a maintainer cannot behave with the code as he > pleases, claiming that it's his time and therefore his, and only his, > business. So this is an objection to the refactoring, not to how Vladimir spends his time working on GDB. That's fine; I was just reacting to my interpretation of your statement. Thanks! Please note that this is also what Vladimir was trying to say. Objecting to the results of refactoring is different from objecting to him working on the refactoring. I've seen several kind of objections: - The effort of conversion would not be worthwhile. I believe that these objections are, in this circumstance, not significant; the people who believe the effort of refactoring is not worthwhile are certainly not obliged to help. - The conversion is a bad idea because of inherent problems of C++. I haven't seen much to convince me of this. - The conversion is a bad idea because of the dependency on C++. This is an interesting issue and I plan to discuss it, but not in this message. One objection I have not seen: - The result of the refactoring would be harder to solve problems in. This, especially with concrete examples, would be a compelling objection. > The idea is also that GDB is a collective effort, so arguments saying > "I will do this because I like it, and you shouldn't care" are not > something I'm willing to accept. To see one reason why tempers are flaring in this conversation, please compare that paragraph to this one: GDB is a collective effort, so arguments saying "you will not do this because I don't like it" are not something I'm willing to accept. > > And I think one of the bit structural issues in GDB is that it's hard > > for even active volunteers to take it to new places. I want to make > > that easier. > > So do I, but what new places are we talking about? Until now, I fail > to see even a single direction in which someone would like to go, > while the fact that GDB is written in C makes that hard. A number of examples have been presented in this thread. I find them convincing; you don't. I'm not sure what I can add to that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery