From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-18 13:27:15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Berlin" <dan_at_[hidden]>
> Okay, well, let me explain my point.
> My point is that most C++ applications of the future, or at least,
> robust, extensible C++ applications (IE non-super domain specific must
> run as fast as possible no exceptions are not what i'm talking about)
> , will not be written purely in
> C++. Already they aren't. They all have their own scripting languages,
> or use an existing one, and as time passes, more and more of the
> application tends to be moved into a scripting language, because it's
> a heck of a lot easier to work in.
> (Now when i say python here, you could substitute your favorite
> scripting language)
> Given this, things like Python *are* the way of the future for
> C++. Most of an application will be written in python, rather than
> C++. Or at least, a significant amount of them will be in python.
> Whether this takes 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years to become the norm,
> it's happening.
> Having py_cpp in boost helps us provide for this future, since it is
> the future of C++.
While I can't buy into Dan's point-of-view completely, I do believe it is
one of many valuable approaches to using C++. As Bjarne would say, there's
no "one true way" to use the language, but this approach is likely to become
increasingly prevalent as time goes on.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk