People,
I have been following the poi-dev mailing list over the last few days.. saw
a post about interest in developing a c++ port of POI (TJ). And was
generally excited about it.. I call it poi++..
I saw the subsequent posts about C being a better alternative.. I disagree
to it.. since when
I'm not particularly excited about it. C++ is a detestible language and
will always be one and you'll never convince me otherwise. That being
said, nice work. Consider me marie antonette. let them eat cake, even
if they like bitter nastly dry brittle cake. So in short I'll commit
this.
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be great to have an abstract code generator that would have
front-ends to generate Java, C, and C++. I haven't studied the code
base
enough to know if this is feasible, but I would imagine we could
generate the
code to access many of the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be great to have an abstract code generator that would have
front-ends to generate Java, C, and C++. I haven't studied the code
base
enough to know if this is feasible, but I would imagine we could
generate the
On 1 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
We already DO do XML-Java code generation.
So you do XML-Java using XSLT for HSSF and HDF. This is awesome!!! Much
cleaner than other code generation scripts I've seen (e.g. the Perl script for
wv2). How much of the code base do you anticipate will
T.J. Mather wrote:
On 1 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
We already DO do XML-Java code generation.
So you do XML-Java using XSLT for HSSF and HDF. This is awesome!!! Much
cleaner than other code generation scripts I've seen (e.g. the Perl script for
wv2). How much of the code base do
Rainer Klute wrote:
I think its a waste of time to do a C\C++ version of POI...
Maybe, maybe not. It would broaden POI's appeal if it could be ported to
C or (gag) C++. I wouldn't mind doing a C port of POIFS, but I have
taken a vow of celibacy wrt C++ -- I'll never get screwed
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rainer Klute wrote:
I think its a waste of time to do a C\C++ version of POI...
+1. Fiddling around with doing in C/C++ the same things we have
done in Java already only distracts us from getting POI more
feature-complete.
(A much more
Besides, a C\C++
implementation would be focused towards linux\unix community because M$
already exposes this functionality in Windows
I dont have too strong an opinion on whether it would be a wasted effort or not
re the other impl of ole2, but i would like to point out that some people
Oh man thats to funny. If they do it lets try and engage them.
Thats like great PR for the project. If they keep their implementation
of POI open we can reference it from the home page. Of course I think
I'd rather see them call the Java stuff from J# or what-have-you as that
would
Really I'm not sure coming to think of it why they'd wan't to convert it
to J#, it would be easier to create a J# wrapper to call POI
Many reasons, most having to do with getting people to install a JVM on a
production server with a large .NET app running. Like most programmers, they
would
On 30 Apr 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I think the strong points for C++ are:
* Much easier to port from Java, since C++ is much closer to Java than C
I disagree. An adequate code generator will make this irrelevant.
Besides any such advantage will be greatly exceeded by increased
It would be great to have an abstract code generator that would have
front-ends to generate Java, C, and C++. I haven't studied the code base
enough to know if this is feasible, but I would imagine we could generate the
code to access many of the Excel and Word datatypes is this manner.
Would there be any interest in having a C++ library developed in parallel
with the Java POI libraries, including POIFS, HSSF, HDF? The idea would
be similar to how Xerces C++ and Java work, sharing a similar API and
code structure.
This way we would use POI in the various open-source office
From: T.J. Mather [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would there be any interest in having a C++ library developed in parallel
with the Java POI libraries, including POIFS, HSSF, HDF? The idea would
be similar to how Xerces C++ and Java work, sharing a similar API and
code structure.
This way we would use
Hi TJ -- I got Ken's message first so I replied to you inline with it
and him at the same time.. see it.
T.J. Mather wrote:
Would there be any interest in having a C++ library developed in parallel
with the Java POI libraries, including POIFS, HSSF, HDF? The idea would
be similar to how
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Which are largely written in C and not C++
Why C and not C++? C++ is object oriented, and is much closer to Java
than C is.
And proponents of the GPL generally feel that APL software is *legally
incompatible*
I hope we can work out the
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 16:27, T.J. Mather wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Which are largely written in C and not C++
Why C and not C++? C++ is object oriented, and is much closer to Java
than C is.
C++ is NOT very object oriented but thats all philosophy.
I think its a waste of time to do a C\C++ version of POI and this is why.
Its been done before. Of course it hasn't been done as well as its been done
by our group, nevertheless I think the need has been recognized and met by
other groups. I appreciate TJ's enthusiasm for our product. I would
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 18:28, Ryan Ackley wrote:
I think its a waste of time to do a C\C++ version of POI and this is why.
Its been done before. Of course it hasn't been done as well as its been done
by our group, nevertheless I think the need has been recognized and met by
other groups. I
Well I think there are strong points for C here:
* Compatility
* Usage from C applications
* Support from Andy et al.
I think we can get around the compatibility by using a Portable subset of
C++. This is what many good C++ projects (Xerces, KDE, QT) do.
The usage from C applications is a
values. I have never seen a C or C++
program that was easy to maintain.
- Original Message -
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: POI Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: C++ Version of POI
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 20:23, T.J. Mather wrote
the Java class libraries. (Ask Sam Ruby about
that and .NET)
-Andy
- Original Message -
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: POI Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: C++ Version of POI
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 20:23, T.J. Mather
I think its a waste of time to do a C\C++ version of POI...
+1. Fiddling around with doing in C/C++ the same things we have
done in Java already only distracts us from getting POI more
feature-complete.
(A much more intellectual challenging project would be to write
a Java - C/C++ compiler
24 matches
Mail list logo
