On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Garrett Serack <garre...@microsoft.com> wrote: > If I thought that we were gaining large leaps in productivity for 50k, I > wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.
I'm used to C++, I think others are used to C. Having manual string and memory handling isn't my ideal. I'm fine with C though, I was just wondering why we chose it. > But realistically what does C++ buy us that C doesn't? I'm just saying the > delta between C and C++ isn't that much (classes, exceptions, templates, > overloading) and we're not dying for those features. > > I'm actually thinking on the other end a bit. What if we can tighten our > belts to < 25k for the core? Would we even bother with a bootstrap dll? Could > we get away with embedding the CoApp core with everything? Even if the core > chubs out to 60k... perhaps we'd still consider binding that directly into > target MSIs. What's the advantage? Unless CoApp engine isn't frequently updated, wouldn't it get old pretty quickly? Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
