I should mention that the code in question is being rewritten, anyhow - and we have a good set of regression tests already.
Jon -----Original Message----- From: Christian Mayer <m...@christianmayer.de> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:48 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions <flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] C++ for Simulation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Jon S. Berndt schrieb: > If cost is an issue (isn't it always?), is it worth > it to expend the resources to clean up code that may have been gathering > flotsam and jetsam for years - particularly if you want to add some new > features (base on new requirements), anyhow? I'm sure you know the "never change a running system". This is IMHO responsible for the many old fashioned Fortan stuff that's still used today (although modern C++ would give better performance, etc. pp.) On the other hand at my day job the embedded software development team next to me does change languages (from hand coded C to ASCET to TargetLink to Simulink Embedded Coder) - but that's a slow process and only parts that need a redesign are affected. The parts that need only minor additions will stay in the same language unless there's a big need to ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
