[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: FFMPEG code a mess

[Gábor Farkas]

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> G?bor Farkas <gabor at nekomancer.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>
>>>G?bor Farkas <gabor at nekomancer.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi
>>>>>On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:50:22PM -0600, Mike Melanson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich Felker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you're just a baka who can't read code.. The reason it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>	Maybe we're being too hard on the sciatl.com guy. Based on his
>>>>>>email and every OO/C++/Java FAQ I have ever read, I think a
>>>>>>complete OO rewrite could magically solve every shortcoming that
>>>>>>FFmpeg has. Indeed, it's high time for FFmpeg++.
>>>>>
>>>>>java solves all problems you never realized where there at all, and
>>>>>replaces them with problems you will never be able to forget
>>>>
>>>>;)
>>>>
>>>>please don't fall into the same mistake as the original poster
>>>>(he thought that OOP is the only answer. don't think that OOP is
>>>>always the wrong answer)
>>>
>>>OOP is sometimes quite useful.  However, Java is always wrong.
>>>
>>
>>now this is a message where i cannot decide if it is truly your
>>opinion (as suggestged by the first sentence) or a joke (as suggested
>>by the second sentence) ;)
>>
>>if it's your opinion, why do you think that java's such a bad choice
>>for an OOP language?
> 
> 
> Java can be handy sometimes, but there are a few things that annoy me:
> 
> - Everything has to be an object.

int/char/boolean and stuff like that does not have to be an object.

but isn't it the same in C?
you have some basic types and then you have to create structs. in which 
way is it different from classes?

> - No unsigned types.

why do you need them? what would  you like to do with them?

> - The java.lang.Void class.

wow. i didn't even know that such a class existed. how did you meet him? ;)

> 
> Have you ever used Java for anything serious?


yes, i worked as a java developer for 2-3 years..

gabor