| |||||||||||||
ConnMan 1.0 releasedConnMan 1.0 releasedPosted May 14, 2012 4:27 UTC (Mon) by johnny (guest, #10110)In reply to: ConnMan 1.0 released by cmccabe Parent article: ConnMan 1.0 released
Why are some people still afraid of OO languages? Apple provides Objective-C, Android offers Java, but the Linux community still produces libraries where you have to use long ugly boilerplate C code just to create a class.
I don't mean to be offensive or anything, I'm just curious. At one point, it used to be that C++ compilers were buggy and/or didn't produce goode enough code, but surely that's not true nowadays...?
(Log in to post comments)
ConnMan 1.0 released Posted May 14, 2012 10:38 UTC (Mon) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link]
I think part of the answer is that writing libraries in an OO language tends to involve making it the single officially blessed language for that system (as in your examples of Apple and Android) due to the difficulties of making cross-language calls, whereas practically everyone supplies some means of calling into a C library, making it a useful lowest common denominator.
ConnMan 1.0 released Posted May 14, 2012 20:25 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
Object-orientation isn't a language feature, it's a programmer feature.
C is a useful lowest-common-denominator language which can be accessed from anywhere. It also tends to be more efficient than the alternatives. That makes it useful for writing truly common libraries.
Now, having said that... I don't know whether C is the best language to write a network-manager-like program. I'm partial to wicd myself, which is written in Python. As long as the DBUS bindings can be accessed from any language, the choice of implementation language seems irrelevant.
And now it's time for a language flamewar, where all the usual points will be brought up exactly as usual. Move along, nothing to see here.
|
|||||||||||||