[nanomsg] Re: C++11 binding
- From: Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 06:33:06 -0500
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Peter,
>
>>>> I wonder if someone has tried to _implement_ nanomsg with
>>>> C++11.
>>>
>>> You should probably read: http://250bpm.com/blog:4
>>> http://250bpm.com/blog:8
>>
>> Nothing you could not circumvent within C++.
>>
>> But a hard requirement for C is the idea to get it into the Linux
>> kernel, C++ has no chance there.
>
> Still, feel free to make you own C++ implementation if you wish. In
> the articles I've just argued that if you want to do system-level
> programming (something you can use to power a mission to Mars, or a
> device that gets built into a concrete wall) C++ gets into your way
> rather than helps. If your reliability requirements are not that
> strict, C++ is perfectly OK.
Sure. The fallacy being that perfect code is written in C all the
time. I've dealt with atrocious code in adaptations of the ArchLinux
kernel in my career. Then there's also the Mars Climate Orbiter.
Likely poor documentation and/or communication the culprit there.
> Martin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTaz3fAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YGiUH/iD2da5cFL4cX4LO3eiVph2F
> 6NCoUZHcpXnJrJ6Lk/hgi/AdxGhiLqUSWLWgGXgqR1yjQY2sj9jmhyZku3luaYTs
> X/4BsccPzFLknO6GQ6V58rxEa/Vtn9LfUm+1uT2FmX20a6A+e2S+6TxTza0VEMmj
> 9Iwl/U67dqNwlQje7riJp/wF2yEz6qj9ex4DHuXC627SQxVkABh+yRvuz6tJ+aDi
> xI3NcM1txNx/gGJRxvDNgCJXnlXzTGk77oMo8+YQD2C+B/chqvWWjUb12bpy/fdQ
> lsfKzJ+nEShDDd19EVvIvGl+wMdr8nbIjoWDC8jTbvSI8YrrZlfBXLokDQS5vPo=
> =+BwU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Other related posts:
