[GRASS5] Want GNU libavl ?

[David D Gray]

Andrea Aime wrote:

> [...]
> 
> 
>>>
>>I know that we have this long-standing policy of preferring ANSI C as
>>the central language for GRASS. But the truth is that few people _if
>>any_ today in engineering, research, academia use C as the development
>>language. It is almost universally C++ that is used. I think that we
>>have to accept that now and move on. We don't need to necessarily code
>>the core of GRASS in C++, but we should be able to wrap in external data
>>structures if these are only available (or the best implementations are
>>available ) in C++. Also reflect : Mitab, Dime ... the list goes on.
>>
> 
> I agree here, too... I definitely prefer OO programming, but that's
> mine (and yours) preference... I would like to know what the other
> developers think about this issue... in fact I think that having a C++
> wrapper over the current libraries could attract some more
> developers...
> 

 >

> [...]
> 
>>But it gets a bit of a headache when you create whole
>>development systems as a dependency for anyone who wants to build GRASS
>>if we choose to use implementations from other languages (like Ada/Gnat).
>>
> 
> Yes. BTW, by having C++ wrappers we could also create some 
> bindings to other languages (Python, Java, and so on, the QT/KDE bindings are
> generated by a semi-automated procedure as far as I know)
> 
> 


I think ever more complex data structures get developed faster if you 
use OOP techniques, but I'm not really advocating C++. I much prefer 
java, Ada - a host of others - before C++. I do concede however that C++ 
is mainstream and many good implementations are available that are 
difficult to find elsewhere, even in C, and we should adjust our policy 
now to be more accomodating to these.

David