Thorsten Behrens wrote: > I buy that. But as I said elsewhere, in my book there's a > fundamental difference between c++ extensions and e.g. Java- or > Python-based ones: it is *much* easier to break compatibility for > c++ extensions, and handling them suck when dealing with > cross-platform extensions. Given all that, I believe their use > should be discouraged, and they should have less weight when it comes > to deciding for or against a change that would affect c++ extensions > alone.
I don't know what "discouraging" means. At the end developers choose the language they prefer, and if we don't forbid to use C++, people will continue to choose it at times. And as I hope you don't ask for forbidding C++, we have the obligation to not break it intentionally. So again: If an OOo release came with an API that is incompatible to a large extent, we could also change the C++ binding incompatibly - as well as any other language binding. But changing the C++ binding with every release just because "it's fragile anyway" isn't a good idea. Maybe it's harder to deal with C++ than with e.g. Java. But that shouldn't be a reason not to try it. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
