[openbox] Why not C++?

Yen-Ju Chen yjchenx at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 14:14:57 EST 2007

On 3/3/07, Dana Jansens <danakj at orodu.net> wrote:
> > Openbox has a lot OOP-style code. Yes, he works fine, but I think, this
> > is technically wrong - C Programming Language has not native OOP
> > support. Yes, we have a GObject and other tools, but (imho) this is the
> > bad solution.
> >
> > C++ Standard Library has a lot of GLib features, and in this case, we
> > can forget about GLib.
> Openbox uses glib for things like lists and hashtables and
> portability. There is no use of gobjects in Openbox.

  Technically, you can write OOP in C or any other common language.
  C++ may offer some advantage than C in general for OOP,
  but consdiering the size and complexity of openbox,
  the advantage is very limited.
  So the argument of using C++ for OOP may apply in general.
  But for openbox specifically, it may not apply.
  I have a port of openbox in Objective-C.
  I don't see a big advantage besides I use GNUstep instead of glib.
  So C is a good choice for openbox until it becomes bigger,
  which I don't see coming because it is not what openbox
  want to be according the website.


More information about the openbox mailing list