C++. Style guide.

[Paul Sutton <pa...@ukweb.com>]

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> An interesting idea. It seems to me, though, that what this gets you is no
> better, and in some ways worse, than using C++ and inheritance. Am I missing
> something?

Oh no, not again. I say no, use Java if we must re-code Apache into a
different language, but I'd prefer to stick with C. Yes some OO
programming techniques are great, and lets use them in C whereever
possible, but C++ is much less widely used (how many other Unix systems
programs are written in C++? perl? bind? sendmail? inn? cvs? lynx? xntp?
Umm). 

Anyway, while we are going over old wounds, what about resurrecting the
Apache coding style guide. It was an excellent idea in my opinion and was
95% complete when the world fell over. Or use this easy-to-digest two word
programming style guide:

   Use comments.

//pcs

Re: C++. Style guide.

[Anand Kumria <wi...@progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Paul Sutton wrote:

> On Thu, 1 May 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > An interesting idea. It seems to me, though, that what this gets you is no
> > better, and in some ways worse, than using C++ and inheritance. Am I missing
> > something?
> 
> Oh no, not again. I say no, use Java if we must re-code Apache into a
> different language, but I'd prefer to stick with C. Yes some OO
> programming techniques are great, and lets use them in C whereever
> possible, but C++ is much less widely used (how many other Unix systems
> programs are written in C++? perl? bind? sendmail? inn? cvs? lynx? xntp?
> Umm). 

What about GNU Groff? I'm sure James Clark (jjc@jclark.com) would probably
have some ideas as to the availablility of C++ compilers on various
platforms. 

Anand.