And thus spake Daniel James Patterson, on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 09:30:31AM +1000: > On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in > > C++! > > > > There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I think an OO > methodology would work well in this case simply due to the maintainability > factor. > > <gasp> We could do it in .....ADA!</gasp>
One thing that people seem to be forgetting (not necessarily you, but I figured this was a good time to pipe in) is that it is desirable for dpkg to 1) have a small footprint and 2) have few depencies. I see the second as more important, because fewer dependencies mean fewer chances to screw something up that will break dpkg (as we've seen with C++ libraries breaking apt, etc). -- Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie, http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die. Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_
