It's (also) from a former GPG dev, bases on the GPG source where some of the targets are:
* switch to C++, allowing to reuse the legacy code, with lots of code thrown out
* move to a single binary (again)
Now, C++ is naturally not your fancy new language and the rewrite-it-in-rust people may run to their pitchforks but he has a blog post entry where he argues his choice: https://neopg.io/blog/cplusplus/
TLDR: He can build upon the well established GPG, C++ is mature and it's flaws are known and can be avoided an worked around.
He even mentions the Sequoia Project in the last paragraph, and envies them a bit as they can use Rust.
(for the record, nothing against rust or sequoia, just wanted to show a related project)
While C++17 is a pleasure to work with, versus C++98, this kind of thinking only works out in very small teams (<= 5), very focused on quality assessment tooling like analyzers.
Making developers avoid C style coding on C++ code is a continuous fight.
It's (also) from a former GPG dev, bases on the GPG source where some of the targets are: * switch to C++, allowing to reuse the legacy code, with lots of code thrown out * move to a single binary (again)
Now, C++ is naturally not your fancy new language and the rewrite-it-in-rust people may run to their pitchforks but he has a blog post entry where he argues his choice: https://neopg.io/blog/cplusplus/
TLDR: He can build upon the well established GPG, C++ is mature and it's flaws are known and can be avoided an worked around.
He even mentions the Sequoia Project in the last paragraph, and envies them a bit as they can use Rust.
(for the record, nothing against rust or sequoia, just wanted to show a related project)