Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 27/28] sysbus: apic: ioapic: convert to QEMU Object Model

[Anthony Liguori]

On 01/25/2012 02:33 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 25.01.2012 00:03, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> > On 01/24/2012 04:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > On 2012-01-24 22:53, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > But I don't like this.  The problem is that the declarative syntax we
> > > > have doesn't distinguish between "not-specified" and
> > > > "zero-initialized".
> > >
> > > That's surely solvable.
> >
> > Please try :-)
> >
> > I've spent a good chunk of time mulling this over and could not find an
> > acceptable solution.  I think the same is true for the GObject folks.
> >
> > There is a declarative solution for this that I know of, a C++ class
> > definition ;-)
>
> So what's the reason not to go with one of the object-oriented,
> C-compatible languages GCC supports, like C++ or Objective-C/C++?
> (Objective-C has native reflection capabilities fwiw.)

I actually prefer C++ but much in the same fashion that I prefer 8-space 
indenting.

I think it's objectively better, but not significantly better enough to warrant 
the disruption of introducing it.

C++ makes polymorphism easier and declaring classes a little nicer, but it 
doesn't help significantly with factories, properties, or introspection.

Polymorphism in C is mostly a one-time cost so once you have the infrastructure 
(object.c), it's not really that bad.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Personally I disliked those trivial mini init functions in the initial
> 2/4 series, too, but I don't really mind an imperative approach either.
>
> Andreas