On Aug 30, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006, at 20:58, Andrew Turner wrote:
Oh, and further to that I'm in the process of getting control of
Geo::Gpx (although it'd be better if it were called Geo::GPX) which
is currently incomplete with a view to fleshing it out as a complete
general purpose GPX parser / generator. Next up I plan to visit
My point for jumping is was there there is a lot of details you're
looking up, making into algorithms, etc. So what I'd like to do would
be to either find comparable libraries for what you're adding, or
develop them in parallel (more like delayed). Maybe keep with a
similar interface, and arch for the simple tools so that maintaining
them across languages is easy and documentation/references can be
consistent.
Is it not more valuable to have interfaces that are appropriate to
the individual languages? A perlish interface isn't necessarily a
pythonish interface - and neither of them are likely to be anything
like the C or C++ interface to the same functionality. Well, apart
from fairly simple APIs - in which case it seems moot.
Andy, you are absolutely right! Why have a mushy compromise interface
when you can have an API that fits with the language and its existing
standard packages?
Cheers,
Sean
---
Sean Gillies
http://zcologia.com
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
