[GRASS5] New info on openDWG

Glynn Clements glynn.clements at virgin.net
Fri Aug 27 19:04:00 EDT 2004

jg-linux at triad.rr.com wrote:

> (4) Which brings up my next thought.  It seems we
> are linking to more and more C++ code. We used to
> use v.in.sdts for which the US government had an
> SDTS C library.  They now have a C++ library.  Now
> we use r.in.gdal (or v.in.ogr) which is C++. And
> more people are trying QGIS which is C++. I assume
> we are going to stick to C for Grass.  Are there any
> issues here to be concerned about?

1. It's harder to write C++ code which will compile on a wide range of
platforms than it is for C.

2. The resulting binaries are less likely to work on systems other
than the one on which they were compiled than would binaries which
were built from C code.

3. C++ code is less generally useful than C code. Most languages can
call C code, fewer can call C++ code.

Glynn Clements <glynn.clements at virgin.net>

More information about the grass-dev mailing list