This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK


On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> "Hargett, Matt" <matt.hargett@bluecoat.com> writes:
>>> As noted earlier I think we do want to use some STL classes.
>>
>> I agree with Mark's earlier declaration that it is relatively
>> straight-forward, low-hanging fruit to replace VEC_*
>
> I do not object to simple and obvious uses of STL to replace equivalent
> functionality, but I've seen code that layers STL over STL over STL to
> the point where the code is very difficult to understand. ?Hence, my
> recommendation to avoid STL *at first*.

I think that would be most unproductive and misguided.
The first thing we should do is

    (1) resist NIH

Then
    (2) we should prefer standard solution over home-grown hacks, unless
         there is a clear demonstration of value.  For example, it would be
         unwise to prefer our current VEC_xxx over std::vector.  Conversely,
         we should probably have our own hash table, since there is none in
         C++98.

> It teaches caution against  over-abstracting and arbitrary complexity.

avoiding over-abstracting is not reached by banning standard solutions -- that
only lead to more brittle and bug-ridden hacks.

The way we avoid over-abstracting is to have people write simple codes, and
reviewers use their best judgments.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]