Ralph Corderoy wrote:
if we wanted a better code base for the same graying user population,
wouldn't we do a gradual rewrite in some well-disciplined subset of
No, everyone has a difference subset so we won't agree. There's nothing
to enforce it automatically. No subset of C++ is nice. And any subset
would probably become invalid as C++ marches ever onwards to every new
buzzword and must-have feature. No. :-)
that's a knee-jerk reaction. one i have long made myself.
bert hubert at powerdns found a subset he can live with, and ways to
enforce it. basically there are no operators overloaded and no
subclassing. he wanted new(), and methods, and garbage collection.
the advantage is that converting NMH to C++ is about one person-day of
effort, since none of the new features would have to be used on day 1.
if we wanted the effort of an actual rewrite, we would need to justify
the time expenditure with a potentially larger user population, which
means reconsideration of features that younger people actually depend
on, like imap and mime. i'd be up for that.
but if we just want the feature set we have but with fewer bugs, we
should take a non-dismissive look at C++ before considering any other