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 considered as being "best practice", but this
doesn't necessarily have to be this way.
> - Hard-coding every instrument in C++ instead of nasal [...]
This is not James' claim.
> - Hard coding every instrument/flight control in C++ [...]
This one not either.
> - The pool of people with commit rights to C++ code is very, very small.
There might be an 'organizational' issue, do you really think this
should be taken as a measure for "proper" (TM ;-) technical design ?
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
