On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:33:00 -0400, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > ..why _is_ FG written in C++ and not C? > > I'm going to limit myself to one public posting in this thread and > will send any further responses offline. ..agreed, we can post a summary later. > I very much doubt that I would be contributing to FlightGear if it > were written in C rather C++. I wrote my first large (>10K lines) C > program in 1987-88, so this is not from lack of experience. I've ..in my case it _is_ lack of experience, so I the newbie ask the dumb questions. ;-) > noticed in working on large projects for customers that large > applications are 2-5 times as fast to develop and debug in Java as in > C++, and about 2-5 times as fast to develop and debug in C++ as in > C. I'd love to do FlightGear in Java (framerate be damned), but since > I get little support, I can settle for C++. ..I'm more concerned about simplicity towards airworthiness certification; Java I understand is 4-25 times quicker to develop/write, but runs slower? Harder or easier to read, as in "How about the FAA guys inspecting?" ..can C code be generated from C++ or Java source without undue difficulty using some tool? How about C++ from Java source? ..or is C++ source as "easy" to read as C source for the FAA guys? > You *can* write and debug a large application in C, but it's > unnecessarily hard -- just look at Gnome and GTK, which end up > reinventing most of C++ in non-standard syntax, to see how ugly things ..agreed, agreed, and ugly code is not airworthy. Needs to be clean and pretty and easy to read and understand. Linus and the kernel guys enforce a coding style, how far off it are we? ..can the whole issue be as simple as enforcing coding style for easy readibility??? > can get. Big programs have to be object-oriented one way or another > -- either you use C++'s standard way of doing it, or you reinvent the > wheel in C with some goofy macro-based stuff. Note how C-based Gnome > development procedes at a snail's pace next to C++-based KDE (I use ..how about kde and qt? What else is out there? > and like Gnome, but I won't code against it), and Linux kernel > development isn't all that fast these days either. ..agreed, speed needs sexy reasons, is why I propose airworthy code. We have beaten wintendo everywhere exept the mass market corporate desktop, which inho, is close. > Finally, while there may be more C programmers than C++ programmers, > the C programmers would have to be very, very good to keep FlightGear > from melting down into a formless blob while the C++ programmers need > only average skill. In the end, I think we end up with a bigger > talent pool this way. ..major point! :-) ..my "airworthy" questions comes from seeing the potential in airworthy code in avionics etc, built from a subset of FG and linux some day. Until someone comes up with a better idea. ;-) ..hummm. Why is the Linux kernel not written in C++? ;-) Hurd? Free|OpenBSD? Anyone? Any OS written in C++? That _is_ possible? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
