On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> Why not Groovy (soon to be incubating at the ASF). That way we keep
> >> things in the family, and we're likely to eventually move everything to
> >> a JVM-based implementation instead of this silly native-compiled, last
> >> century stuff.
Ha! … I'm taking this as a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Moving on …
> The problem (or "problem") with C++ is that it's *extremely* hard to
> code things correctly in an exception-safe manner. Otherwise I'd be all
> for using it, these days (especially with C++11) you have a language
> that's in some ways horrible to use, but when used correctly can provide
> huge benefits. But it takes years of single-minded language-lawyerish
> hacking to get to the "used correctly" phase.
Agreed. Google had a very good approach to this. C++ was (is?) one of the
primary development languages, but the feature set allowed to developers
was extremely limited. Through the "style" guide, most features were
I don't think we can expose C++ APIs. The ABI has never appeared to be
reliable. But in limited fashion, I *do* believe we can rely on a few
features of C++. Contrary to the state of C++ back in 2000, where we
totally threw it out as an option … today, the C++ compilers should be able
to provide a couple key features that could improve our code.
It might be an interesting consideration for 1.10 whether we can require
all our delivery platforms to provide a minimal set of C++
Received on 2015-03-13 11:10:40 CET