Personally I like the asceticism imposed by doing straight C in the kernel. It makes me feel like I am Ken Thompson himself back in '71.
In fact, to get the full effect, I like to hook up my linux workstation to a teletype machine (basically a printer terminal) and program using the ed editor. This way I am forced to pack as much code as possible on one source line (much like Ken did when he worked on Unix -- have you seen how strangely formatted his code was?). It makes you feel cool. -Calin "C is for children. Real men program in Haskell." On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Steven Seeger wrote: > The GUI for my project is OO. I created a whole library and it implements a > system for receiving X/Y coordinates from any device (in one case, a touch > panel) and dispatches events to certain objects on screen. Objects can be > buttons (that change image when you press them) and pulldown menus and > sliders and whatever. I even used this to do an on screen keyboard for one > system. It works very nicely, and the code is being used in more than one > project. > > What we use RTLinux for here is running feedback control systems. That's the > only experience I've had with it, so I don't see any reason to use C++ for > that. > > Steve > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:16 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [rtl] (RT) C++ why you should use it > > > > > >What a constructive discussion this is. I just have to contribute: > > > >Steve says it is obvious for which programming language (C or C++) you > >SHOULD choose. However he just makes one argument-like > >statement: "the GUI > >was done in C++ with reusable code". And in contrast to this > >argument the > >language of choice should be C. > > > >Well I have chosen C++ for my project, because with this language it is > >possible to implement an OO-design. And we have all heard of > >the advantages > >of OO-development: > >- Reusable (if correctly implemented) > >- Easier to maintain. > >- etc. > > > >Unfortunately I have not read the "Does OO Synch with How We > >Think?" paper. > >However I'm not impressed by the conclusion of the author (who wrote it > >anyway?). There are, as I see it, two possibilities for "the > >greater demand > >for long term memory": > > > >The first is the re-use of source-code. It is off course ridiculous to > >think that the writer of a particular piece of software will > >be the sole > >person to reuse the source-code. So create a well documented > >OO-design and > >implement it accordingly. This should make it easy for > >everybody, including > >the writer, to understand the code. And makes the use of long > >term memory > >redundant. > > > >The second use of long term memory is in a large project where > >you create > >tons of code over a period of a few years. However this can also be > >remedied by a good OO-design and implementation. Use of code a > >few years > >after it is implemented resembles re-use very closely. > > > >So make an OO-design and implement it in an OO-language like > >C++. These > >rules apply to all projects, so the choice between C++ and C for your > >RTLinux project should be obvious. Choose C++ ! > > > > > >Albert > > > >> For my project at work, the GUI was done in C++ with reusable code > >> modules like bitmap objects, labels, text boxes, sliders, pulldown > >> menus, etc. The RTLinux modules were all done in straight C. > >I thought > >> it was obvious which to do. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > >Behalf Of > >>>Christopher D. Carothers > >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:25 PM > >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Subject: Re: [rtl] Re: RT C++ and why more people don't use it. > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi all -- let me fan the flames a bit on this topic and > >>>point out > >>>a very interesting paper on the subject of OO programming by > >>>Les Hatton. > >>>The title is "Does OO Synch with How We Think?", IEEE > >>>Software, May/June > >>>1998. Basically, the conclusion the author comes to and > >>>provides evidence > >>>for is that object-oriented programming results in more coding > >>>errors and > >>>each error takes long to fix. The reason he provides is that object- > >>>oriented programming requires much greater dependence on the > >>>developer's > >>>long term memory (human memory and NOT RAM :-)) which > >ultimate lead to > >>>more errors and by extension they are going to take longer to fix. > >>> > >>> Now, I caveat the above with that Les' study was done before the > >>>wide use of the Standard Template Library (STL). In fact, STL > >>>was not used > >>>in C vs. C++ comparison study. > >>> > >>> When deciding to go with C++ (vs C), the author recommends you > >>>determine if you get a high degree of code reuse ( GUI > >development has > >>>benefited greatly from this). Otherwise, go with C. > >> > >> -- [rtl] --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR > >> echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> -- > >> For more information on Real-Time Linux see: > >> http://www.rtlinux.org/ > > > > > > > >----------------------------------------- > >This email was sent using SquirrelMail. > > "Webmail for nuts!" > >http://squirrelmail.org/ > > > > > >-- [rtl] --- > >To unsubscribe: > >echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR > >echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-- > >For more information on Real-Time Linux see: > >http://www.rtlinux.org/ > > > > -- [rtl] --- > To unsubscribe: > echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR > echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > For more information on Real-Time Linux see: > http://www.rtlinux.org/ > -- [rtl] --- To unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For more information on Real-Time Linux see: http://www.rtlinux.org/
