[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/examples/muxing: make compatiblewith C++

[Don Moir]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Moir" <donmoir at comcast.net>
To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches" <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/examples/muxing: make compatiblewith C++


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nicolas George" <george at nsup.org>
> To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches" <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/examples/muxing: make compatible with C++
> 
>>I am not against a pure c++ example, but making the C examples less readable
>>and getting them to show bad practice is IMHO a very bad idea.
> 
> Nicolas, sorry just hard for me to let this pass and trying to be objective ( hopefully constructive :)
> 
> Seems the 'best practice' in ffmpeg is to write the most terse unreadable code you can.
> 
> o - Single letter variables (not including indexes like i, j, etc)
> 
> o - Hide as much as posible as long as it's tight and small (even though it does not make any difference in bin size). 
> 
> o - poorly documented  (internal code worse)  - the API is sometimes guess work
> 
> o - some code that weaves around endlessly
> 
> o - no use of mixed text and declarations - A C99 feature but maybe that is optional (optional geeze) - makes code more readable

meant to say mixed statements and declarations..

> I don't know, but if GSOC is about student learning, why would they choose ffmpeg? Just a thought.