From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18571 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2008 20:30:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18542 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2008 20:30:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:29:49 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.228.238]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K4U004NJ69BTTJ1@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:36 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:38:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: David Carlton Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <488F4AA7.7060001@gnu.org> 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 > From: David Carlton > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:56:14 -0700 > > Some people strongly prefer to work (on large scale projects) in C, > and really don't want to work in C++. Some people strongly prefer to > work in C++, and really don't want to work in C. (And some people > would rather work in Java, or Ruby, or Haskell, but none of those are > realistic options for a GDB transition, so I'm ignoring them.) FWIW, at least for me, this is not a language choice issue, this is an issue of making a decision whether to invest a non-trivial amount of time and effort into refactoring. I would say the same things I did in this thread if someone would suggest to refactor GDB in C. > Given that, we can talk about technical advantages or disadvantages > until we're blue in the face, but I don't think that will get us any > farther. We've already seen examples of how GDB is reimplementing > almost every C++ concept that you can think of in C; for the C++ fans, > that's convincing evidence that GDB development would proceed more > smoothly in C++ (those constructs could be done with less work), while > for the C fans, that's convincing evidence that GDB development > doesn't need C (proof by existence). > > And I don't see that more examples are going to help much. I think > Vladimir's proposal of doing one example of a conversion in detail is > sensible enough, but I don't think it will change anybody's feelings > on this matter. I bet the results will look better to people who like > C++, and unconvincing to people who like C; indeed, Eli's already said > as much for the latter side. For the record, on my daytime job we develop and maintain a very large body of extremely object-oriented C++ code. So much for me being on ``the latter side''.