Hi Richard, 2009/7/17 Richard Gentle-Green <[email protected]>: > OK here I go again sticking my neck out as a newbie!! So you did last week, stating: > I do feel that this group could be a little more friendly toward the > newcomers seeking advise and guidance. I replied to that post with a few questions since I like to know what's bugging you. So please reply to my post on this.
> What we appear to have within this group is a vast amount of technical > knowledge and expertise (certainly far beyond my own) about a language that > doesn't have a standardised instruction set or manual. It is true that there is no integral, complete, extensive manual that covers both the language and libraries. Is that what you are looking for? And would the pjal manual meet this request if it were up to date? (so: don't judge it on the libraries content, that's extremly outdated). > Because of the numerous versions of lbraries for various functions, the > structure of the language imediately loses integrity. Could you explain why you think so? I understand that many libraries supporting many topics are dificult to comprehend. But what we try is to create an interface (and style) for the librareis that is as consistent as possible. Could you give some examples that make the language loose intigrity? > The outline language JAL has a common structure which is (for most > programmers) easy to understand and work with. > > The backbone of libraries do not seem to have a common methodolgy to > facilitate universal integration. > > Without a garaunteed library 'plug-in' system with standardised JAL language > calls, we will always be left with a piecemeal solution to PIC programming > problems. As I said before, we put in a lot of effort to create a clean, consistent set of libraries that cooperate. Clean and consistent can be open to interpretation, but 'cooperation' not. We know the jallib files work cooperate, amongst others through our continues integration robot. So I don't understand what you mean with 'piecemeal solution' - this once was the issue and jallib solved this! And for the 'common methodolgy' - we have jallib style guide that defines naming conventions and we are carefully concidering if we are going to use defaults ;) But clearly you have an idea on how we could improve on this, so please share with us what aspects of 'common methodolgy' are lacking, what is lacking on the integration aspect and how this can be changed. A few years ago, I decided (after writing many programs in half a dozen languages) to give Java a try for a simple consolse app with file access. I could have written it in half a day in C++, estimated 2 days in Java and took over a week, mainly due to 'library issues'. All the funcionality I needed was there, but it was different organised then the languages I used before, I did not (at first) have a complete reference at hand and there was no tutorial that decribed just the small subset of functionality I used. At the time, I could not see any 'ommon methodolgy' or 'plug-in' system, but that does not mean that there wasn't any. Could it be that this is the case here (especially since there is no extensive, complete tutorial/reference)? And if not, why do you think so? Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
