On 19 April 2013 18:01, Vadim Girlin <vadimgir...@gmail.com> wrote: > The choice of C++ (unlike in my previous branch that used C) was mostly > driven by the fact that optimization algorithms usually deal with a lot of > different complex data structures, containers, etc, and C++ allows to > isolate implementation of all such things in separate and easily replaceable > classes and concentrate on the logic, making the code more clean and > readable. > I'm sure it would be good fun to have a discussion about the relative merits of C and C++, though I think I've seen enough actual C++ that you're not going to convince me it's the better language. However, I don't think that should be the main consideration. It's probably more important to consider what current and potential new contributors prefer, and on Linux, particularly for the more low-level stuff, I suspect that pretty much means C.
> I haven't tried to keep it as a series of independent patches because during > the development most changes were pretty intrusive and introduced new > features, some parts were seriously reworked/rewritten more than one time, > requiring changes in other parts, especially when intermediate > representation of the code was changed. It was usually easier for me to > simply fix the new regressions in the new code than to revert any changes > and lose new features, so bisection wouldn't be very helpful anyway. That's > why I didn't even try to keep the history. Anyway most of the code in the > branch is new, so I don't think that the history of the patches that rewrite > the same code few times during a development would make it more readable > than simply reading the final code. > I think I'm just going to disagree there. (But of course that's all just my personal opinion, which probably doesn't carry a lot of weight at the moment.) _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
