Re: [Libreoffice] concept for c++ based subsequenttests

Hi Kohei,

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:20:28PM -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Let me cast my vote for the use of C++ too.  Markus has already outlined
> the benefit of using C++ for debugging point of view. 

Oh, I have no opposition against writing C++ tests. When have the
infrastructure for that in the build system and it certainly has advantages
once the test is there. However, as Michael pointed out a dynamic language has
clearly some advantages too when aiming for getting the test up quickly. Java
is just as clumsy in that regard as C++ and has funky garbage collection with
makes the bridge code "interesting", so it is a lose-lose, but it is what we
have right now.

> I will also point out that using python here may alienate some of us who are
> not a big fan of the language.  I can at least think of one particular person
> who is very allergic to python (and he has a big presence among us). :-)

This 'big presence' is also quite allergic to Java, if I get you right. And
there even with some rational reasons to back it up. Oh, and I hope you are not
suggesting the 'big presence' would be blocking things in the project because
of personal taste. ;)

> I personally do love and use python in some of our projects, but I would
> stick with C++ for this specific use case as Markus pointed out.

Yes, no objections to that. However, if you want to get more test coverage (or
even just the same) as the old qadevOOo tests, so that you could get rid of
those (and Java), you are surely quicker with Python than with C++. Esp. since
there might be more people willing or able to invest in that.

Best,

Bjoern