I made a wish, wrote a letter to Santa...

[Shachar Shemesh]

Ove Kaaven wrote:

>Consider that the reason could be that C++ has too many interoperability
>problems to solve any within an interoperability project like Wine. Just
>try to compile something like MFC with g++ and see how well the result
>would run MSVC++-compiled programs.
>
>  
>
I don't think anyone was talking about MFC. MFC is written in some 
strange language MS made up using CPP macros and visual studio wizards. 
Calling it C++ is an insult to C++.

>There's
>nothing wrong with having a separate FreeMFC project outside Wine using
>C++ (and compiling their FreeMFC libs with MSVC++ for the benefit of
>Wine users)
>  
>
I believe you meant winelib. I'm with you on that one.

>As for COM/DCOM, having implemented big parts of it myself, I'm not so
>sure C++ would have helped a whole lot in any case. It's a mess and the
>only thing you'd achieve with C++ is a different style of mess (a more
>unreadable one, for starters).
>  
>
I'm sorry, it has been YEARS since I wrote anything OLE related (my very 
first Windows program was an OLE server, hand coded, that did a shell 
extension. That was my only interaction with OLE). As such, I will not 
presume to decide whether that statement is correct or not.

I do know, however, a thing or two about C++. I have coded quite a lot 
in C++, and I believe I am pretty much aware of the things the language 
does well, and the things it is poor at. It all boils down to this - C++ 
is a language (much much) more difficult to learn well than C, and OOP 
is something that is difficult to do right. Add to that the fact that 
there are (quite a few) jobs for which OOP is the wrong tool, and you 
get the origins of the common belief that C++ is evil.

Personally, I *love* C++. I don't use it for OOP much, because I spent 
the last 3/4 year trying to set up a business, and the preceding 2 1/4 
years writing kernel level code for CheckPoint's FireWall-1. Not much 
C++ used there, for reasons purely technical. I do believe that, ABI 
interface problems aside (nothing unsolveable with extern "C"), C++ is a 
superior language to use to C for almost any task, provided you can 
master the art of not getting carried away with using features you don't 
need (with OOP being one of those). Granted, it's a difficult art to master.

When working with environments where most of those differences would 
amount to just more warnings for logic errors when using C++, I don't 
mind saying "everyone knows C, let's use only that". However, when 
really complicated stuff is involved (Boaz mentioned Direct something 
codecs), I believe there is room to use the best tool for the job.

To sum it all up - it may not be MFC (as I agree with Ove that MFC can 
be saftely left out of Wine proper), and it may not be OLE (as I don't 
know it well enough to judge), but I think C++ does have a place in 
certain parts of Wine. I do believe that most of the "less readable" 
claims are a result of either over-engineering the solution or people's 
expectance to "just read" the code. OOD will, occasionally, require you 
to read the docs before messing with the code.

             Shachar

-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration & consulting
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/