On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:10:02PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > Jens Owen wrote: > > Concern #3: Readability by the active contributors. I'm not the only > > old fuddy duddy in this group of developers. How much "readability" > > time do you figure the young C++ whipper snappers will save by investing > > in this transition to C++? > > I don't think the issue is readability so much. I think the bigger > issue is the ability to share code among the drivers. Looking at the > code for the various CreateContext functions, the code is about 60% > between mga, radeon, r200, and r128 drivers. I assume that the mach64 > and savage drivers will likely be the same. I haven't looked at the > i810 and i830 drivers, but they probably follow similar form. If we > could share a bunch of that code among four or five drivers, it would > save a LOT of duplicated code.
Are you saying that C++ somehow allows for more code sharing between drivers than straight ANSI C? I can buy into a statement that, due to C++'s encouragement of OOP behaviour, shared code can become more prevalant in C++ than in C. However, I do not hold with the view that C++ intrinsically "allows" for more code sharing. If you're going to rewrite the code in C++ to facilitate code sharing... you could just as well rewrite the code in better ANSI C to facilitate code sharing. [ Mind you, "technically feasible", and "someone with experience doing it" are two separate things. As I mentioned in the IRC chat to someone, "perhaps the real issue in your comparison of C++ and C code, is that you havent actually SEEN any well-written C code" :-> ] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
