Re: C++

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

IDL compilers are a very unusual special case. First, they do not abstract. They merely provide a language-neutral way to specify an interface that must exist anyway. Second, a decently written IDL compiler can emit safe but highly optimized code that a human cannot maintain.

 

That is: where IDL compilers are used, the abstraction/modularity boundary already exists, and the question is solely a matter of what language should be used to describe the interface.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Bahadir Balban <address@hidden> wrote:

address@hidden wrote:

Right, you can use languages with more abstraction to hide some
complexity. However, this also obscures the view on what is really
happening, and limits possibilities. So abstraction is always a
compromise.

Yes. Certainly.

The problem with C++ is that IMHO the abstractions are very poor: they
obscure a lot without really hiding much complexity...

-antrik-

So why are you in favor of IDL compilers? To me that is also an abstraction that is a compromise. You could simply use a library with helper functions, and know what is going on, instead of design a whole system around compiler-generated communication idioms.

--
Bahadir Balban