Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: C++ in Rockbox
From: tr16_at_mail.inf.tu-dresden.de
Date: 2002-06-26


On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:11:38AM +0100, Nick Robinson wrote:
> Okay okay I know it's off topic... apologies in advance... but I thought it
> was rather good...
> [...]

It is not.

If you think it's funny then you actually haven't understood C++. First of
all, OOP helps. You can do similar things in C, but in asm as well so this
argument doesn't count. Just because it is easier to write bad C++ code doesn't
make C++ worse. It's the coders fault. If you are a good programmer, you
won't have problems writing good C++ code. If you're not, then you will think
that the above is funny.

You can argue wether you need or want a high-level language for a project
this close to hardware. IIRC, there are even RTOS written in C++ that
perform really well.

So if it's not obvious that something is bad, it might be as well the case
that you lack in skill if something is harder to work with. Regarding
computer languages, more abstract and more powerful ways are better if you
can still address everything in detail (which is the case here, as C is a
subset). If the developers can deal with it, it leads to code that is easier
to read and maintain.

Torvald



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa