On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 03/15/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Brinkman wrote:
So, what you are saying is that "around there", people prefer to use one "glue" language, C, to another one, and that the glue will affect all code to make it less "extreme/templated"?
Yeah, thats about it. "C" is the glue language that everyone can use. Like it or hate it, its still around, and still the most popular language for the widest variety of programming tasks.
Although, for the most part, I still prefer boost style "C++" for my own projects where I have full control of the code.
When it comes to being a library writer, you need to understand your intended audience. If it is the intent of the library author to limit his users to a small subset of C/C++ developers, that is is his choice, of course.
I would perfer that boost developers think bigger and target a larger audience.
Guys, please, move the flame wars of C vs. C++ to another topic. I've expressed my point regarding Boost.Log rather clearly.
It is actually more relevant that a "flame war." We are discussing how a log API should look to be most useful (in terms of depth and width), and that discussion pertains to all (new) libraries of Boost: do we want them to be used by the larger C populace? How much are we ready to sacrifice in expressivity (or succinctness) in order to widen our target? Should we have C wrappers for the most "utilitarian" libraries, such as a log library? My point is that Boost is a C++ library and should not care at all about the impact on C developers, or people who happen to be used to that "glue language," even for their C++ development. I still think it is a valid discussion to have. /David