Apache++

[Bill Stoddard <re...@ibm.net>]

I'm not too keen on the idea of moving to C++. Is the thinking
to completely redesign Apache or start using C++'isms in the existing
code base?  My experiences with the latter approach have been mostly
bad.
(Compiling with a C++ compiler to get stronger type checking is
okay...)

C++ provides a really rich design space (or phrased differently, there
is a
LOT more rope to hang yourself with). My observation (admittedly
limited) is that there is a strong tendency for new C++ developers
to employ features (inheritance rather than object composition for
example)
just because it is possible, not because is makes sense. There are a lot
of
subtle traps awaiting the unwary. Take a look at Scott Meyers book,
"Effective C++" for some examples. And multiple inheritance is pure
evil!

C++ is much more powerful but it is substantially more complex.
Are the benefits are worth having to deal with the complexities? I'm not

so sure. Not being a C++ guru,  my opinions are slightly biased....

The new C++ standard is goodness. It will take a while for all the
compiler
manufacturers to become fully compliant though, so care is needed in
setting the coding guidelines.


Bill Stoddard
wgstodda@us.ibm.com

Re: Apache++

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
> I'm not too keen on the idea of moving to C++. Is the thinking
> to completely redesign Apache or start using C++'isms in the existing
> code base?  My experiences with the latter approach have been mostly
> bad.
> (Compiling with a C++ compiler to get stronger type checking is
> okay...)

Using C++isms in an existing C codebase may or may not be bad, but it
certainly is unlikely to show the real benefit of C++ (if there is any).

> C++ provides a really rich design space (or phrased differently, there
> is a
> LOT more rope to hang yourself with). My observation (admittedly
> limited) is that there is a strong tendency for new C++ developers
> to employ features (inheritance rather than object composition for
> example)
> just because it is possible, not because is makes sense.

There are also many stupid things C newbies do, but this is not an
argument against using C, IMO.

> There are a lot
> of
> subtle traps awaiting the unwary. Take a look at Scott Meyers book,
> "Effective C++" for some examples. And multiple inheritance is pure
> evil!

Agreed.

> C++ is much more powerful but it is substantially more complex.
> Are the benefits are worth having to deal with the complexities? I'm not
> 
> so sure. Not being a C++ guru,  my opinions are slightly biased....

We don't know. If we don't try it, we'll never know.

> The new C++ standard is goodness. It will take a while for all the
> compiler
> manufacturers to become fully compliant though, so care is needed in
> setting the coding guidelines.

This is a major barrier, though becoming less major as time passes. 

Though I note that MySQL contains C++, and I don't here much complaint
about its portability.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/