>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Jason Slagle wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> I would repeat several sentences in my last reply. >>> Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET >>> Framework than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for >>> GTK+? Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT >>> or other X11 toolkit? I believe the answer is that all programmers are >>> human begins, not >>> machines. Human programmer would reduce brainwork, even if an API >>> package/wrapper slightly reduces running efficiency. >> >> And this is why office 2003 takes longer to load on a 2.4ghz machine then >> office 97 did on a 233. >> >Why don't you say that Office 2003 is more powerful than Office 97?
Hm, is it? I've never noticed, I guess I just don't have the need for the more powerful parts of it. >You even haven't known what we are discussing and what I would commit. >Actually my patches has little relationship to C++. What many C++ programmers don't realize is that lots of the C++ functionality (inheritance etc.) can be done in C almost as good and easy (and sometimes just as good and easy). And it's done, and people have pointed it out. There are some things in C++ that really are a great advantage over C (STL, for an easy example) but these tend to be pretty heavyweight to put them into the kernel. Then again, there are things in C++ that are very convenient and lightweight. One of them would be the automatic calling of destructors when exiting a block. Makes the tracking of the locks much easier. I'm not so sure that the exceptions get into this category. -SB _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
