So??? what are you saying? In general any good design and implementation is better
than a bad one regardless of the
choice of the implementation language. It appears to me that you are accusing the
OpenSSL developers of producing a
"hack"... Or did I interpret what you said properly?
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:56:13 +0100, Rene G. Eberhard wrote:
>
>> WHy woudl you transform it to C++. It adds about 50K to the
>> executable on linux GCC and runs slower. I can't see much reason
>> to use C++ for a library liek OpenSSL
>
>Your statement is not generally applicable! A C++ binary may be
>a bit larger than a C++ binary. Wheter it runs slower depends
>on the design. A proper OO design in C++ is (in general) faster
>and more stable than a C hack without a design.
>
>Regards Rene
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Rene G. Eberhard
>Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
>Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
