|Subject:||Re: [ft-devel] "Inside the fastest font renderer in the world"|
|Date:||Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:09:37 +0100|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0|
I see your point, but I think that adding obfuscation (the extra complexity introduced by using C) to the code to support a tiny and vanishing minority of systems without C++ is not worth the bother; such systems would very probably not be able to run FreeType in any case because of lack of support for 32-bit integers; and I doubt very much whether they would have any need to rasterize glyphs.
There's an interesting discussion here (http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/3027/is-c-suitable-for-embedded-systems) which gives both sides of the issue, but which contains many errors and irrelevancies... however, I respect your point of view and won't tread a well-worn path again.
On 05/08/2016 09:00, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I might take a look at it, but no guarantees about my availability.Thanks for the offer anyway :-)I would convert it into C++, not C; C++ is a better fit, and there is really no point in using C these days.I disagree. As far as I know, there are still embedded systems that don't have a C++ compiler (and probably never will). Given that everything in FreeType is C, it would be a severe complication if just a single file becomes C++. In other words, I would have to convert your C++ code in C, which means double work... As an alternative, there is https://github.com/uwplse/crust a Rust-to-C compiler – has anyone tried this? I don't know whether it produces code which runs as fast as the Rust equivalent. If this works reliably, I could imagine to have both a Rust source file and its translation in the FreeType git repository. Unfortunately, `crust' needs a huuuge set of preliminaries... Werner
founder and CTO
+44 (0) 7718 895191
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|