coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Trent Nelson <trent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/2010 4:16 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Rivera, Rafael
> <rafael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On 5/20/2010 4:03 PM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> > > I'm perplexed why anyone would want to forgo the advantages of C++ for
> > > C; I can make my C++ DLLs just as small as C ones.  And, like, what if
> > > I want a linked list, or a hash, or a set, are we planning on writing
> > > all of those from scratch?  Even string handling alone seems like a
> > > huge win.
> >
> > The major concern was dependencies. If we move to C++, we'd have to then
> > start binding to, redistribute, and service the Microsoft Visual C++
> > runtimes. If we used the latest version of the runtimes, for example,
> > we'd drop support for Windows XP Service Pack 0, 1, and 2 machines plus
> > exclude anyone using the Starter Edition SKU. (The latest runtimes don't
> > install on these platforms.)
>
> Static binding...

Nod, I just did a little test with a dummy DLL project with vs10 and the 
resulting .dll was 30K w/ no runtime dependencies (w/ static).