On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 05:17 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Zach Welch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 17:25 -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > >> > >> What? It is only several days to get this project to compile with C++, > >> maybe several weeks to "rewrite" it. (Do we get to peek at the old > >> code when we "rewrite" it? If not, it would be several years.) > > > > Having developed large projects in both languages, my approach would be > > different enough that they would be unrecognizable from one another. > > They would be two different projects. At that point, preserve this C > > Could you elaborate on that ?
>At the most fundamental level, it comes down to this: > >C == imperative programming >C++ == object-oriented programming I don't agree here. You can do OO programming with C and not use OO programming with C++. OO programming doesn't rely on a language. Sure C++ makes it easier to make do OO programming but C doesn't prohibit OO programming. I don't see much advantage for OpenOCD to switch to C++. OO code tends to be less easy to understand because of overloading of functions and object inheritance. With OO you'll likely need more documentation to allow people to understand the structure of the code. The majority of the OpenOCD users are embedded firmware engineers. Most embedded firmware engineers I know have very little to do with C++, OO programming and the STL / boost libraries. These people probably won't be able to fix OpenOCD without climbing the learning hill first. My vote would be for OpenOCD to stay a C program. Nico Coesel
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
