Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Paul Zastoupil <paulz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>, Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity
From: Andrew Sutton <ansutton@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:32:13 -0500

On Friday 30 November 2001 07:32 pm, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:16:06PM -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2001 03:58 pm, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > As usual, I won't bring in much code, but I'll comment anyway ...
> > > wouldn't it be better to switch to C++ or even Java for 2.0?
> >
> > ahhh... you speak my language :) C++ is probably a better solution for
> > the server. a default client could be written using Qt. so, let's switch
> > to c++ for version 2.0 - unless anybody can provide a solid reason why
> > not (don't forget performance degradation is a myth).
> Isn't there a problem of portablility with C++?

to what? embedded systems? maybe... as long as we avoid namespaces, complex 
templates and basically really intricate c++ (like using the typename 
operator) there shouldn't be too many portability issues.

e.g. take SGI's STL. it works on tons of systems with tons of compilers. 
another example: ACE (Adaptive Communications Environment). lots of 
compilers, lots of systems - and it's overcomming libc and libstdc++ 
incompatibilities and differences. also, Qt.

c++ should present no incompatibilities as long as we stay away from some of 
the newer features that haven't been implemented for all compilers.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]