On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: >...
> >> Why not Groovy (soon to be incubating at the ASF). That way we keep > >> things in the family, and we're likely to eventually move everything to > >> a JVM-based implementation instead of this silly native-compiled, last > >> century stuff. > Ha! … I'm taking this as a tongue-in-cheek joke. Moving on … >... > The problem (or "problem") with C++ is that it's *extremely* hard to > code things correctly in an exception-safe manner. Otherwise I'd be all > for using it, these days (especially with C++11) you have a language > that's in some ways horrible to use, but when used correctly can provide > huge benefits. But it takes years of single-minded language-lawyerish > hacking to get to the "used correctly" phase. > Agreed. Google had a very good approach to this. C++ was (is?) one of the primary development languages, but the feature set allowed to developers was extremely limited. Through the "style" guide, most features were declared verboten. I don't think we can expose C++ APIs. The ABI has never appeared to be reliable. But in limited fashion, I *do* believe we can rely on a few features of C++. Contrary to the state of C++ back in 2000, where we totally threw it out as an option … today, the C++ compilers should be able to provide a couple key features that could improve our code. It might be an interesting consideration for 1.10 whether we can require all our delivery platforms to provide a minimal set of C++ compilation/features. >… Cheers, -g
