> Hi Sunish, > > I'm not so concerned about the popularity of Jal/Jallib! > My 'complaint' was about the lack of reponse on the latest release of > Jallib. I'm concerned that this may be a reason for people to reduce their > efforts for Jallib or even leave the Jallib team (including myself). > > Response would be only people from people who are confident to ask and answer or from people who are desperate. Many might not even try the new version if they don't want to break something that's working.
> > On 01/25/12 07:03 pm, Sunish Issac wrote: > > Even though I like and use jal a lot, I consider using C when there's a >> need for fixed/floating point and string processing. >> > > In Jallib there is a limited set of functions for fixed point arithmetic > and string processing. What is missing exactly which would make you (and > hopefully others!) to stick to Jal? > Some thing like var float x x = (adc_read(channel) * 12)/1023 print_float_dec(serial_hw_data,x) and for strings var string s s = 'Hello' s = s + 'world' I know limitations of PIC but some other compilers do it easily. Also all standard c string/char/float functions should be available in jallib > > There should be compelling projects and samples. >> > > These can only be provided by experienced users. Maybe these are the > people who need Jallib the least for personal use and have not so much > interst to contribute... > I have a large number of small/medium projects which will be published gradually, documenting it was the reason for not publishing but after reading Poke the Box I feel like publishing it as is > > Providing blink an led for every supported PIC of jallib in the >> > > samples folder just add to noise. > > I agree that 400 blink samples in a library of 1000 'real' samples may be > too many. We could consider splitting the sample library in 'basic' and > 'advanced' or even more (but not too many!) subdirs. > > Maybe we can split to 10fX/12fX/16fX and 18FX and then further combine samples like 12f629 and 12f675 where architecture is exactly the same. > IMHO among the many reasons, one reason of less contributions >> to projects of jallib is the restriction of not allowing >> > > CamelCase in variable names. > > I am a supporter of CamelCase, but I don't remember the reason for the > decision, probably a democratic majority. If this is really a reason not > to contribute then we should reconsider this. > > Time to vote again , IIRC Mike Watterson and Joep too were supporters of camel case. Best regards Sunish -- 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.
