Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Invisible escreveu:
> >> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> >> which facilitates operational proofs...
> >
> > nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> > work on from there... :p
>
> Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
> continue spreading the myth?
>
> It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
> abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.

I know that, but the myth is so widespread that for some subconscious reason I
automatically wrote java...

in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
challenge... :p

Post a reply to this message