>The following is just my opinion and others may disagree, but I don't >think it's a good idea because I think that the costs would greatly >outweigh the benefits. As long as it supports the development of a productive and informative conversation, I'm glad about any kind of opinion.
>OK, let's assume that the Aspect C++ group contributes a beautifully
>engineered set of extensions to g++, meeting all the coding standards,
>done with great style and with a large regression test suite, properly
>legally assigned to the FSF. Great code, slap the GNU label on it and
>ship it, right?
AOP is not a new language. It's just an improofement of OOP.
While nowadays we have to put debug-logic into our class declaration,
AOP allows us to go a step further and separate the logic from the duty.
Instead of putting stderr-streams and such stuff into declarations,
we can deploy logging of certain classes and class-groups into separat
files. It wouldn't talk "another language", it just would help to express
actions a programmer is already programming anyway today in a more
unified and eysier way.
I'm NO compiler architect, but from my point of perspective - please correct
me if I'm wrong - for adding support for AOP into C/C++ part of gcc, only minor
changes would be needed.
best regards
David
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
