At 09:09 05/08/2016 +0100, Graham Asher wrote:
I see your point, but I think that adding obfuscation (the extra
complexity introduced by using C) to the code to support a tiny and
vanishing minority of systems without C++ is not worth the bother; such
systems would very probably not be able to run FreeType in any case
because of lack of support for 32-bit integers; and I doubt very much
whether they would have any need to rasterize glyphs.
Speaking for Ghostscript, this is not the case. We are required to support
a number of embedded operating systems, many of which are of some degree of
legacy and which have limited (if any) support for C++.
These platforms drive printers, which very much do have a need to render
glyphs :-) Please don't assume that all glyph rendering is for screen display!
I no longer have responsibility for FreeType in Ghostscript, but if FT were
to move to requiring C++ I think we would have to fork it (as we did once
before) in order to maintain a pure C build. Personally, as one of the two
people who did a load of work to get FreeType integrated into Ghostscript
in place of the (old) fork that was being used, I'd be very disappointed to
have to go back to using a fork.....
Ken
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
