[Mesa-dev] r600g: status of the r600-sb branch

[Henri Verbeet]

On 19 April 2013 18:01, Vadim Girlin <vadimgirlin at gmail.com> wrote:
> The choice of C++ (unlike in my previous branch that used C) was mostly
> driven by the fact that optimization algorithms usually deal with a lot of
> different complex data structures, containers, etc, and C++ allows to
> isolate implementation of all such things in separate and easily replaceable
> classes and concentrate on the logic, making the code more clean and
> readable.
>
I'm sure it would be good fun to have a discussion about the relative
merits of C and C++, though I think I've seen enough actual C++ that
you're not going to convince me it's the better language. However, I
don't think that should be the main consideration. It's probably more
important to consider what current and potential new contributors
prefer, and on Linux, particularly for the more low-level stuff, I
suspect that pretty much means C.

> I haven't tried to keep it as a series of independent patches because during
> the development most changes were pretty intrusive and introduced new
> features, some parts were seriously reworked/rewritten more than one time,
> requiring changes in other parts, especially when intermediate
> representation of the code was changed. It was usually easier for me to
> simply fix the new regressions in the new code than to revert any changes
> and lose new features, so bisection wouldn't be very helpful anyway. That's
> why I didn't even try to keep the history. Anyway most of the code in the
> branch is new, so I don't think that the history of the patches that rewrite
> the same code few times during a development would make it more readable
> than simply reading the final code.
>
I think I'm just going to disagree there. (But of course that's all
just my personal opinion, which probably doesn't carry a lot of weight
at the moment.)