Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> [...], and it really requires buy-in from the aircraft
> developers to create generic functions and submit them rather than taking the
> easy
> way out and copy-and-pasting functions from other aircraft.
Think about how nicely this works wrt. sharing identical cockpit
i
James Turner wrote:
> A related observation is that there is not much of a FG-sepcific Nasal
> 'standard
> library' for this kind of thing, so huge amounts of copy-and-paste goes on
> between aircraft. Sometimes there's five or ten copies of a given Nasal
> function
> in CVS, across different
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 21:39 +0100, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
> Why change the subject? James did not ask for deprecating Nasal, he
> simply wanted to avoid multiple implementation of functionality. Less
> error prone and if the available functionality does not fit ones need,
> then fall back on Nasal
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 20:25 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Roland wrote:
>
> > And one thing more when I read the subject line which came across me:
> > How many airplane developer will you loose if you remove the Nasal
> > engine from FGFS because they can write Nasal code but not C++ code?
>
> Di
Martin Spott wrote:
> [...] Not every Perl, Python, PHP programmer (just
> to name a few popular ones) is writing everything on the basis of
> nothing than the scope of the API which is implemented in the core Perl
> distribution.
Oooops, Freudian slip ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user fr
I think Ron started out with this subject line. I tried to change it, but
everyone is replying to the original thread. I don't think anyone is trying
to depricate nasal. They'd have a big fight on their hands if they did try!
Curt.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
> Why
Why change the subject? James did not ask for deprecating Nasal, he
simply wanted to avoid multiple implementation of functionality. Less
error prone and if the available functionality does not fit ones need,
then fall back on Nasal (or C++).
Cheers,
Jari
On 2010-01-28 16.20, Ron Jensen wro
Roland wrote:
> And one thing more when I read the subject line which came across me:
> How many airplane developer will you loose if you remove the Nasal
> engine from FGFS because they can write Nasal code but not C++ code?
Didn't you realize that this is just one single person spreading FUD in
Am Donnerstag, den 28.01.2010, 18:18 +0100 schrieb Roland:
[...]
> And one thing more when I read the subject line which came across me:
> How many airplane developer will you loose if you remove the Nasal
> engine from FGFS because they can write Nasal code but not C++ code?
>
The instant loss
Ron Jensen wrote:
> Actually, I disagree with this statement, and it represents a
> fundamental shift in attitude from the way I've seen flightgear's
> development progressing over the past year or two.
Well, you're implying that the past two years progress in this area of
development is to be co
Hi all,
if you have duplicate code across many airplanes, let's say basic
navigation or basic instruments, you may still want to write a pure
Nasal library which holds generic functionality.
Another things is byte-compilation. This is a hybrid of classic
interpreters and classic compilers. And it
On 28 Jan 2010, at 16:31, Curtis Olson wrote:
> It's interesting though how much nasal you can actually get away with using
> without making a blip on frame rates. Nasal is *very* efficient and powerful
> for being an interpreted script language.
Absolutely - and I really don't want to get in
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, leee wrote:
> I think that as a general rule of thumb, Nasal is suitable for
> relatively low update rate aircraft specific stuff - let's say up
> to 10-20 Hz, but anything that has to run at a higher rate is
> better implemented in controllers & filters, or co
On Thursday 28 Jan 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Ron Jensen
wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:24 +, James Turner wrote:
> > > On 28 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Ron Jensen wrote:
> > > > Here is a nasal function to determine if a frequency is a
> > > > localizer.
> >
>
On 28 Jan 2010, at 15:20, Ron Jensen wrote:
> Actually, I disagree with this statement, and it represents a
> fundamental shift in attitude from the way I've seen flightgear's
> development progressing over the past year or two.
It wasn't intended to be anything so fundamental, and I'm surprised
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:24 +, James Turner wrote:
> > On 28 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Ron Jensen wrote:
> >
> > > Here is a nasal function to determine if a frequency is a localizer.
> It
> > > accepts a frequency in megahertz and returns "1" i
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:24 +, James Turner wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Ron Jensen wrote:
>
> > Here is a nasal function to determine if a frequency is a localizer. It
> > accepts a frequency in megahertz and returns "1" if the frequency is an
> > ILS frequency.
> >
> >
> > var isILS
17 matches
Mail list logo
