On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:33:09PM +0000, lkcl luke wrote: > rob, 'allo,
Please reply to the message to which you are replying to. > let things calm down a bit. apologies about the mistakes, i was a bit > upset by what you wrote. that's for me to deal with, but... all the > same - sorry for the consequences. > > yeah i am not particularly enamoured with gobject either. its > dependence on glib, which is supposed to be platform-independent, is a > bit... eugh. It's not platform-independent. It just happens to work on platforms it has been ported to. > i've been looking around at the alternatives (the embedded > alternatives, which stand a chance of being smaller and designed for > the job). they all require c++ with one exception: the phillips / nxp > common object model (again "inspired by" COM). unfortunately, its > bloody compiler nxpidl appears to only be available from phillips, > directly. arse. Indeed, and it probably does not have an especially delightful licence. > so i am going to persist with trying to get tangramCOM up-and-running. > when you get right down to the basics, it's *not* heavy-weight, does > *not* require large amounts of win32 code, and the design is supposed > to be completely independent of OLE[32] so doesn't need _that_ > heap-o-junk dragged in. *Any* amount of Win32 code is no-go. Limit yourself to ANSI C, and we might have a goer. > ... i may be some time.... but that's ok because you're about a year > off of tackling this anyway. If not more. B.
