> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 13:37:52 -0700 > Cc: gavinsmith0...@gmail.com, bug-texinfo@gnu.org > From: Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> > > > That was maybe true 10 or 15 years ago, but is no longer true: C++ got > > a lot of additional baggage, standard classes and libraries, and is > > now very different from C. Converting a non-trivial C program to > > efficient and easily maintainable C++ is a very large job, which > > includes refactoring the main data structures and algorithms into the > > equivalent C++ classes. Since you are advocating C++ due to its > > safety, I'm sure you will agree that the entire memory allocation > > strategy will have to be redesigned and reimplemented to achieve this > > safety, otherwise why bother at all? > > I think you're making the perfect be the enemy of the good. Converting > a large C codebase to "good, idiomatic" C++ is a large job. > But the point is you can do as much or little of such cleanup as you wish.
If we don't convert the code to safe and easily-maintainable C++, then why bother at all? The use of a C++ compiler by itself brings you no advantages whatsoever: code that was unsafe and spaghetti when compiled as C will keep being unsafe and spaghetti when compiled in C++. > > Once again, you can see this in action on the example of GDB, where > > core parts of the code keep being redesigned and rewritten to this > > day in significant ways. That's what conversion to C++ means in > > practice, and there's no way around that. > > Or you can take the lesson that you make the initial easy step of compiling > the C code with a C++ compiler, and then you can take your time cleaning up > things > depending on your painpoints, available people/time, and motivation. That's the worst of all worlds, IMO: we invest the effort, but gain very little. > I volunteer to change the Makefile etc and get the codebase compiling > with C++. This would likely include a bunch of 'extern "C"' declarations > are needed. But only if Patrice supports it (since he seems to do most work > on the texinfo-to-any part), *and* Gavin is at least neutral But as long as > Gavin is firmly opposed, I don't think there is much point in continuing the > discussion. Right.
