doc: clarify node.js addons language

[BethGriggs]

Fixes: #7129

Checklist

• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

[sam-github]

Perhaps in the git commit message "language" should be "are C++"? Other than that, LGTM

[refack]

@BethGriggs super nice of you 🍰
Maybe add a note about experimental napi for a future PR

[gibfahn]

Maybe add a note about experimental napi

@refack what specifically would you want adding? An actual sentence would be nice (although it could probably be left for a follow-on PR anyway).

[mhdawson]

I think the change should likely be made in the title as well (first line in the file), and anything that links to that title.

[gibfahn]

Good point @mhdawson, worth changing this as well.

I get these matches with a quick (rip)grep, @mhdawson do the n-api ones need changing?

➜ node git:(master) ❯ rg "C/C\+\+ Addons"~/wrk/com/node
doc/api/_toc.md
10:* [C/C++ Addons](addons.html)
11:* [C/C++ Addons - N-API](n-api.html)
doc/api/addons.md
1:# C/C++ Addons
234:section titled [C/C++ Addons - N-API](n-api.html).
doc/api/n-api.md
15:outlined in the section titled [C/C++ Addons](addons.html).

[mhdawson]

The N-API actually supports writing Addons in C so C/C++ is correct for them. The references to addons.html of course need to be updated everywhere.

[refack]

@gibfahn@mhdawson what I ment before is that: is this change correct now that we have N-API?

Maybe we should just remove the reference to a language?
Node.js Addons are dynamically-linked shared objects, written in C++, that
->
Node.js Addons are dynamically-linked shared objects that

Also at line 8:

At the moment, the method for implementing Addons is rather complicated,
involving knowledge of several components and APIs

->

At the moment, the method for implementing Addons without a helper library
such as [`nan`](#native-abstractions-for-nodejs) or using the [N-API](#n-api),
is rather complicated, involving knowledge of several components and APIs

[gibfahn]

what I ment before is that: is this change correct now that we have N-API?

I suspect that this doc should be updated to cover n-api, but that's probably something that can/should be done separately. This change makes sense as-is.

Also if we talk about n-api we need to mention that it's experimental, so I don't think we should just add it in next to nan.

[refack]

that's probably something that can/should be done separately

probably, but FWIW both nan and N-API are covered lower in the doc.

[mhdawson]

@refack I had the same discussion with @sam-github and he convinced me this change was ok as existing addons are C++ only and the original section only dealt with them. The nan and later N-API sections were inserted, but the overall flow text not updated well enough to integrate them nicely. What seemed to make sense was to let this change go in now, as it is valid to the section to which it applies, and then plan a more complete update once N-API is no longer experimental.

[refack]

What seemed to make sense was to let this change go in now, as it is valid to the section to which it applies, and then plan a more complete update once N-API is no longer experimental.

Sound good.

[gibfahn]

@mhdawson LGTY?

[gibfahn]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/9812/

[mhdawson]

LGTM

[sam-github]

Landed in abfd4bf

[MylesBorins]

This does not land cleanly in LTS. Please feel free to manually backport. Please also feel free to replace do-not-land if it is being backported