You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org> on 1997/10/06 00:58:14 UTC
C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> BTW, chaps, I've started using STL recently. You really don't know what
> you are missing. Did I ever mention that C++ is a really nice language?
What's STL?
I wouldn't mind revisiting the C++ debate. I'm happy if we restrict
ourselves to things that are implemented efficiently ... i.e. stuff for
which the compiler knows all the method offsets at compile time, so that
rules out multiple inheritance. We'd have to compare the subset that
works in both MS C++ and g++. And we'd lose platforms that have native
ansi-c compilers but don't have a g++ port (such as ... ?).
We'd alienate 3rd party modules, they'd all need rewrites into C++... my
particular vision of 2.0 at the moment doesn't require module rewrites,
just a few name changes (to abstract all system calls).
Dean
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > BTW, chaps, I've started using STL recently. You really don't know what
> > you are missing. Did I ever mention that C++ is a really nice language?
>
> What's STL?
Standard Template Library. Somewhat misnamed, coz in most
implementations there's no library, just headers. Over the years I've
met many things that have improved my life as a programmer, but none so
much for so little effort as STL has.
There was an article in Dr. Dobbs recently. SGI are now the keepers of
the standard (it's becoming part of ANSI C++, I believe). Was HP before.
The main man's name is Stepanov (I'm telling you this stuff as search
engine fuel).
> I wouldn't mind revisiting the C++ debate. I'm happy if we restrict
> ourselves to things that are implemented efficiently ... i.e. stuff for
> which the compiler knows all the method offsets at compile time, so that
> rules out multiple inheritance. We'd have to compare the subset that
> works in both MS C++ and g++. And we'd lose platforms that have native
> ansi-c compilers but don't have a g++ port (such as ... ?).
Multiple inheritance is ruled out by good programming practice anyway -
it's a nightmare to use. STL's main thrust is efficiency.
There are almost no platforms that don't support C++ these days.
> We'd alienate 3rd party modules, they'd all need rewrites into C++... my
> particular vision of 2.0 at the moment doesn't require module rewrites,
> just a few name changes (to abstract all system calls).
I don't see why we shouldn't have a C compatibility layer.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 05, 1997 at 03:58:14PM -0700, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >
> > We'd have to compare the subset that works in both MS C++ and g++.
> > And we'd lose platforms that have native ansi-c compilers but don't
> > have a g++ port (such as ... ?).
>
> What I've heard from friends who do a lot more C++ programming than I
> do is that g++ is not a very reliable C++ compiler. If so, you may
> spend some time working around compiler bugs.
Hmmm ... I use g++ quite a lot, and so far haven't found any bugs,
except for a really stupid one in the iostream libraries (if you supply
the optional flags to the constructor, you have to include the direction
flag, even though it is implicit in the type (i.e. ios::in or
ios::out)).
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Sun, Oct 05, 1997 at 03:58:14PM -0700, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> We'd have to compare the subset that works in both MS C++ and g++.
> And we'd lose platforms that have native ansi-c compilers but don't
> have a g++ port (such as ... ?).
What I've heard from friends who do a lot more C++ programming than I
do is that g++ is not a very reliable C++ compiler. If so, you may
spend some time working around compiler bugs.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
"I am J. D. Falk, Sysadmin. I own a web-server and a LART." - Jeff Mercer
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > BTW, chaps, I've started using STL recently. You really don't know what
> > you are missing. Did I ever mention that C++ is a really nice language?
>
> What's STL?
See http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/
I quote:
The Standard Template Library, or STL, is a C++ library of container
classes, algorithms, and iterators; it provides many of the basic
algorithms and data structures of computer science. The STL is a
generic library, meaning that its components are heavily
parameterized: almost every component in the STL is a template. You
should make sure that you understand how templates work in C++ before
you use the STL.
I won't comment on C++ because I have only used it enough to get to
dislike it, I would have to use it more to get to like it.
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>.
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > And some people think C++ is just silly, anyway.
>
> Which people? And do they have any coherent grounds for the assertion?
I dunno. :)
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> And some people think C++ is just silly, anyway.
Which people? And do they have any coherent grounds for the assertion?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: C++ (was Re: in progress: vhosts yet again)
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>.
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> What's STL?
Standard Template Library, or something of the sort. Although using
the term "standard" when talking about C++ is kinda funny, IMO.
[...]
> We'd alienate 3rd party modules, they'd all need rewrites into C++... my
> particular vision of 2.0 at the moment doesn't require module rewrites,
> just a few name changes (to abstract all system calls).
Well, we're requiring rewrites of modules for 2.0, anyway, if I have
get my wish. Actually, my plans for 2.0 involve a C-based Apache, but
include the possibility of writing modules in C++ if so desired (the
plans that I've detailed in the past regarding 2.0 API changes that I
may actually code someday involve enabling all the Apache "objects" as
actual C++ objects if desired). Although we could write the Apache
core in C++, I suppose.
I don't think C++ compilers are enough widespread, though. And any
sort of standard libraries are certainly not. I think that if we can't
compile Apache in the same development environments we can compile it in now,
we shouldn't make the switch.
And some people think C++ is just silly, anyway.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>