From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28823 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2012 16:54:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 28815 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2012 16:54:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (HELO shell4.bayarea.net) (209.128.82.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:54:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 29731 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2012 09:54:31 -0700 Received: from c-76-102-3-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO redwood.eagercon.com) (76.102.3.160) by shell4.bayarea.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2012 09:54:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4F807147.5030705@eagerm.com> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:54:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++? Not. References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201204042155.q34LtJNB013402@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4F7D8603.90801@redhat.com> <201204060034.q360Yo0m007419@new.toad.com> <4F7E4849.1090104@netspace.net.au> <20120406131619.GI27438@adacore.com> <201204062332.q36NW90m006330@new.toad.com> In-Reply-To: <201204062332.q36NW90m006330@new.toad.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On 04/06/2012 04:32 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >> And yet, that's exactly what we are doing: >> - unit elaboration; >> - gdbarch/language dispatching >> - exception handling >> - use of unions to emulate polymorphism; > > Writing modular programs is a good idea even if we don't do it in C++. > I have heard it claimed that many techniques of modular programming > were even invented before C++ existed - though that may be doubted. If a discussion about the design of C++ adds little to the discussion about converting gdb to C++, I think that discussing the origins of modular or object-oriented programming offers even less. > If people have the energy to rewrite large chunks of GDB, why argue > about it? Go off and do it. It's free software -- you don't even > have to start from scratch like GNU did. The world can always use a > new debugger. You can make a politically correct debugger (pcdb?) > with an identical interface but a C++ implementation under the hood. > If it's better than GDB in the long run, maintainers will migrate to > it, GDB will fall into disrepair, and GNU will adopt it. That is actually not that bad an idea. This isn't a matter of political correctness, but one of technical merit. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077