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

Hi Bjoern,

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:16 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:

> 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 wouldn't call it lose-lose, but that's certainly your opinion.

Also, by "funky garbage collection" if you are referring to the
ref-counted cssu::Reference memory management that UNO API uses (since C
++ doesn't even have memory management natively), doesn't python have
the same issue since its objects are all reference-counted?  And since
with python it has to go through the language binding wouldn't it make
it even more interesting than native C++ binding?

> > 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'm not suggesting anything.  Let's not read too much into my words.
And he certainly doesn't block things.

> > 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.

So, who would be willing to invest time if it were written in python?
With C++ at least Markus is already showing interest.

Best,

Kohei

-- 
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc