Re: GEP / C++ bindings ...

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 14:43, Evan Carew wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> With respect to the technical arguments:
>     Sometimes, the best technical arguments don't help one bit when it 
> comes to a particular technology's adoption. It appears from your 
> discussion below this is not a favorite topic of the current developers, 
> however, I have a feeling that this may be a distinction without a 
> difference. That is to say, what use is the most favorable technical 
> direction (C only IDL) if only a small fraction of the potential market 
> is using it?

Your support is welcome, but it really isn't relevant to Michael's
question. He is not against a separate ORBit/C++ project. But the point
is that
a) Work has been done on a combined ORBit C/C++ project at the expense
of the separate project.
b) Changing the plan now would cause a lot of delay.
c) Changing the plan now might make a separate ORBit/C++ impossible
because
   1. It would need ORBit2 itself to be restructured in a way that is
not allowed after a freeze.
 and/or 
  2. It would require ORBit/C++ to reimplement lots of
currently-undocumented low-level code. That would be a wasteful
duplication of code and effort. And I know it's beyond my abilities.

So the problem is that merging seems to be the only way to have an
ORBit2 C++ mapping. If we don't merge then I expect the ORBit2 C++
mapping to die.
 
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc@usa.net
www.murrayc.com