Re: [boost] Review - boost::log

Subject: Re: [boost] Review - boost::log
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 17:19:47

NOTE: is this not slightly OT? I ask and then I immediately continue on this dreaded path.

This has nothing to do with the style of API's that C++ applications use or expect, it is about the simple fact that the interactive language of choice between libraries and components in the "native" world "around there" (SV) is C, not C++.

So, what you are saying is that "around there", people prefer to use one "glue" language, C, to another one, and that the glue will affect all code to make it less "extreme/templated"? That is fine, and a loss for those companies, in my humble opinion. Well, well, you cannot win them all, most developers will feel more comfortable in C or Java than in "heavier" languages like C++ (not "C plus some strange syntax to support MFC") or Scala.

So, should we give up this nonsense of expressing our solutions in powerful languages (with abstractions fitting the more experienced formalist) and just use C and Java?

PS
Yes, I know we have had this discussion before, where some people got a bit upset by my elitist view of C++, and instead argued that C++ can be made for everyone, or that it should be a goal to address as many developers as possible with our Boost efforts. Only that elusive entity addressed to in some of our signatures will ever really know.

/David

On Mar 14, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Tom Brinkman wrote:

>>> wrong.  "C" style api's are the standard, even in C++ applications.
> 
> Its the established practice.  Sorry if your experience is different.
> 
> Modern C++ is losing its pull around here.  (Silicon Valley)  Very few
> projects use it any more.  By modern, I mean Boost style and heavy
> templates.
> 
> Most of my recent projects have consisted of ripping out templated
> code and replacing it with "C" friendly "API's".
> 
> I still prefer C++ for most tasks.  However, I like to wrap them in "C"
> api's so others can use them.  Using stream operators
> or std::string in a public API is a absolutly horrible thing to do around
> here.
> 
> Those C++ developers that develop in isolation probably have
> not experienced this push back.   I understand.   I sympothize.
> 
> It just doesnt make any sense to write a utility library for
> general purpose use that only addresses the needs of
> boost style C++ developers.  The core of the library needs to be written
> in a way that all C/C++ developers can use it.
> 
> Fine, if you want to write a wrapper around the core with some fancy C++
> technique go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, joel falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> Tom Brinkman wrote:
>> 
>>> Just plain wrong.
>>> 
>>> 
>> What about arguments then ?
>> 
>> wrong.  "C" style api's are the standard, even in C++ applications.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Which comittee decided that ? When I do C++, I do C++.
>> If I need C API, then I write C
>> 
>> C++ developers need to write their api's in a way that is also "C"
>>> friendly.
>>> Thats even more true for utility librarie
>>> 
>> Except sometimes we can't because C lack type safety and tons of proper,
>> strongly typed language feature.
>> 
>> --
>> ___________________________________________
>> Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor
>> PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI
>> Tel : [phone]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost