> > > > I see Ben says "They're portable (except perhaps to some
> really obscure
> > > > embedded systems)" - I guess he means me!
> > >
> > > I'd be surprised if most of these, nowadays, didn't support
> exceptions.
> >
> > Hold on to your chairs and keyboards: Android does not support
> exceptions! Yes, *that* Android that runs on more phones than Apple's
> iOS!
> >
>
> Yup - though that's not one of my targets, the decision not to support
> exceptions is one that many embedded systems make. I'd hazard that the
> choice represented "best practice" and was probably correct at the time.
> Whether we agree with it, or consider it the best choice in hindsight...
> Well...
The Android NDK seemed relatively rushed when it was first released (and given
V1 didn't have any code examples / etc), so I'm guessing this was more a
release-speed decision rather than a design requirement. This is pure
speculation though....
> Elsewhere in this (interesting but increasingly OT thread) Evan laid out
> the advantages of exception handling, but I'd just like to point out
> that his example (seemed to me, anyway) implied two things that many
> embedded platforms do not have:
> - dynamic allocation of memory
> - somewhere to report the failure to
>
> A lot of my targets really have neither, memory is usually allocated at
> compile time, there's generally no heap as such (though there is stack
> space, which can get exhausted and so you need some means to recover
> from stack overflow etc...) and the program *is* the system, so, well,
> if it fails, who ya gonna call?
>
> I don't *think* that model is even that unusual for small targets - just
> not what you'd do on a desktop system, of course!
>
Hmm, EmbeddedC++ has exception support, so I guess it can't be too quaint a
concept - though note that I don't do anything with embedded systems so I'm
probably wrong here
> However - that's mostly tangential to whether fltk ought to use
> exceptions internally these days.
> I'm not in favour, but I'm not opposed to it, either.
> I'm not convinced that it is "value adding" in the core library (since I
> seldom use them myself so I don't see the benefit) but if the general
> feeling is that it does add value, then I'm happy.
>
>
> In other news: if Ben wants to do an Adroid NDK port, well, I say yes!
Well, it'll depend on how it fits in with Matthias' plan for FLTK3. Plus, I've
got a bucketton of porting 2.0-to-3.0 to do as well as a GPA to maintain, so it
probably won't come about until ~December.....
Ben
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
