Marc Weber wrote:
> Well - I don't want to discuss the topic.
>
> I just want to know how to do basic stuff "the Vim way" efficiently.
>
> C++ is not perfect, and probably its easiy to get things wrong.
> But at least it provides standard ways for standard tasks, such as
> arrays/vectors/maps/hashes whatsoever.
>
> Eg buffer.c contains:
>
>
> /*
> * put new buffer at the end of the buffer list
> */
> buf->b_next = NULL;
> if (firstbuf == NULL) /* buffer list is empty */
> {
> buf->b_prev = NULL;
> firstbuf = buf;
> }
> else /* append new buffer at end of list */
> {
> lastbuf->b_next = buf;
> buf->b_prev = lastbuf;
> }
> lastbuf = buf;
>
>
> which is not bad. But if you need the same feature again: a linked list
> like whatsoveer structure, it looks like the standard way is to write
> the same code again. Its taking programmers time and is more likely to
> be wrong.
>
> I personally don't want to spend time on thinking about how to use
> malloc, realoc or such for simple things like lists, maps, ...
>
> Thus is there a standard way, a preprocessor like library which gets the
> job done? something like:
>
> define_list(vim_buffer);
>
> providing functions like
> vim_buffer_list_new()
> vim_buffer_list_add(...)
> vim_buffer_list_remove(...)
>
> ?
Yeah, basic C is missing containers. There are libraries for them, but
there doesn't seem to be one clear winner.
> Does it make sense to port Vim to C++, just to use some very basic C++
> like features, such as vector, map and so on?
> If not - can we document why?
C++ is incredibly complex. The specification is 2000 pages. Only the
top programmers can write C++ code that works properly. And then still
make hard-to-debug mistakes. It's my daily work, I know what I'm
talking about.
Java is a lot easier to work with, but has too much overhead and is very
resource-hungry.
> I know that Vim has a long history, but the future of Vim is likely to
> be longer than its history.
>
> Does Vim run on any platforms only supporting C, not C++?
>
> Sorry for having to ask such a stupid question. Its about simple
> features like "make vim populate quickfix in realtime, so that the 4sec
> issue I talked about goes away".
>
> I expect that Vim's future will be longer than its (long) history was.
> So its worth using simple improvements, too.
>
> If you think this question is nonsense, make me understand why.
>
> So which is the reason sticking to C only, and which is the reason not
> introducing a template library for simple things like lists?
>
> If moving to C++ is not an option, but moving ot a tmeplate library is,
> is there one you would recommend?
>
> I want to have a native implementation for vim-addon-async for example.
The solution I've been thinking of is www.zimbu.org.
It produces C code, thus there should be a way to mix some parts written
in Zimbu and some parts still written in C.
--
In a world without walls and borders, who needs windows and gates?
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
