Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome "I followed the debate about a successor for the C/C++ combination as the primary language for developing the GNOME core desktop platform very closely last month. There has been discussion about a number of options. What I would like to do on this page is give an overview how a probably less well-known language might be a viable compromise as a C/C++ successor. This language is called Eiffel and exists for over a decade. Eiffel takes the principle of Object-Oriented programming to its extremes and, as a consequence, is a very easy to learn language."
Thread beginning with comment 65041
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Rapsey on Sat 26th Nov 2005 19:33 UTC
Member since:

What the hell is wrong with c++ anyway? KDE uses c++ and they have as many developers as they need.
If you have properly designed libraries c++ is by far the bast language to use.

Reply Score: 3

RE: c++
by on Sat 26th Nov 2005 19:46 in reply to "c++"
Member since:

Well, for one thing, it's fairly low-level, yet still manages to be complicated and bloated. It also lacks several very nice features, and isn't terribly elegant, either.


Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: c++
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 06:24 in reply to "RE: c++"
Member since:

I generally agree with this except for your characterization of it as "low-level".

Assembly is low-level and C is sort of low-level, C++ is a high level bloat monster.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: c++
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 15:46 in reply to "c++"
Member since:

The problem with using C++ has always been inconsistent compiler approaches to mangling overloaded method names, meaning that you can only link libraries that have been produced by the same compiler. That I suppose is less of a problem in KDE because everybody will be using the same compiler, presumably it's gcc. For the same reason it should be a non-issue in gnome too then.

D looks like a nice language, though I suspect its current implementation is not free enough.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: c++
by JLF65 on Sun 27th Nov 2005 21:17 in reply to "RE[2]: c++"
JLF65 Member since:

D looks like a nice language, though I suspect its current implementation is not free enough.

I think the only way it would be considered "not free enough" is that most of the language considerations are done by one person. While he does take suggestions, in the end he has final say on what does or does not make it into the language.

Other than that, the "official" compiler has an open source front end and run-time library. It's only the back end that is closed. There is also a front end for gcc for people who wish a completely free implementation.

Reply Parent Score: 1