On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Martin Sehnoutka <msehn...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 03/26/2018 01:38 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Matěj Cepl <mc...@cepl.eu> wrote: >>> On 2018-03-26, 10:52 GMT, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> On 03/22/2018 01:40 PM, Daniel Mach wrote: >>>>> Please read more details on our blog: >>>>> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/announcement/2018/03/22/dnf-3-announcement/ >>>> >>>> “C++ 11 is supported by GCC in RHEL 7 / CentOS 7” — You should >>>> use Developer Toolset to compile on Red Hat Enterprise Linux >>>> 7 if you need C++11 support. The system compiler, GCC 4.8, >>>> has limited support only. >>> >>> When switching the programming langauge than I would think there >>> are some better C-successors than C++, namely Rust? Mad rush of >>> giving up on 46 years old language and switching to one which is >>> just 33 years old seems a bit bizarre to me. >>> > > Take a look into the code, it is mostly C with few features from C++. > > btw what is the motivation to use GOBjects? Is the libdnf api supposed > to be consumed by dnf frontend via gi repository? >
It was a thought a while ago with libhif, and as part of the final rationalization for libdnf, it's being dropped. Because libdnf is going to be in C++, it's going to use SWIG for bindings generation. >> >> I'm okay with not dealing with LLVM for my system package manager, >> thank you very much. I'd be more open to Rust if Rust also could be >> built with GCC, and thus supported across literally everything, but no >> one is investing in that effort. >> > > Well, investment like this will need some justification, not saying that > dnf should be the one, but you will definitely need a big, important > project. > Considering all the other "big important things" people don't invest in anyway, I don't think that'd help any. >> And frankly, Rust is harder to program in than C++, and creating >> bindings is no walk in the park. >> > > Purely personal opinion. You are probably referring to the learning > curve, which is known to be steep, but after this period it is well > worth the effort. > Not my personal opinion. That's the opinion of several developers I know who are working on Rust based projects. Not everyone gets the benefit of GNOME forcing all the things so that stuff _must_ work. > Regarding the bindings, if libdnf is meant to be used via gir (see my > question above), then there is already an effort to make this much > easier (I'm referring to gnome-class). > As I noted earlier in this email, gir is a leftover and is being removed. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
