coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If I thought that we were gaining large leaps in productivity for 50k, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

I'm used to C++, I think others are used to C. Having manual string
and memory handling isn't my ideal.

I'm fine with C though, I was just wondering why we chose it.

> But realistically what does C++ buy us that C doesn't? I'm just saying the delta between C and C++ isn't that much (classes, exceptions, templates, overloading) and we're not dying for those features.
>
> I'm actually thinking on the other end a bit. What if we can tighten our belts to < 25k for the core? Would we even bother with a bootstrap dll? Could we get away with embedding the CoApp core with everything? Even if the core chubs out to 60k... perhaps we'd still consider binding that directly into target MSIs.

What's the advantage?
Unless CoApp engine isn't frequently updated, wouldn't it get old
pretty quickly?

Olaf