> Hi Andrea, Hi,
> > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 11:12 +0200, sejerpz@tin. it wrote: > > What I really, > > really like would be the implementation of "light classes" on the Posix > > profile (in the spirit of [1]) with support for: > > > > * Single inheritance > > * Interfaces > > * Properties > > > > and may be later: > > > > * Signals > > > > I don't know if all of this is really feasible, but reading > > the dova sources it seems that the first 3 features are very simple to > > implement and light enough to be used on some embedded hardware (not > > really an expert here ;) ) > > As there are various ways to implement this on top of POSIX/C, classes > and interfaces defined using the POSIX profile would not be compatible > with types from existing libraries. This means that we'd essentially Yes, but sometimes C interoperability is all that is needed when a micro is really... micro :) > define a new platform. However, without a runtime library, it would not > be very convenient to use that platform. I agree with you and I've to say that and I'm not an embedded system expert (I just wrote some bounce of code for work, when I was younger ;) in C and assembly for some micros, but today it's just an hobby). But I think having classes and some more oop machinery will be also useful in micros with very low resources (32-64Kb of memory), where of course a full framework doesn't make any sense (nor a rich string class etc...) > > In my opinion, the continuation of the Dova experiment will be better > suited for embedded hardware (where you can't or don't want to use > GLib). It will support interfaces and it will allow embedding the needed > bits of the runtime library into the executable without making the > executable larger than necessary. I agree, but taking Dova as a reference I think that should be usable with the bare minimum. For example why Uri, Node, ArrayList, List are member of the dova-base lib? One hypothetical library should include just the minimum to implement classes, interfaces and signal, leaving all the rest, and I mean also rich string classes or other enanched datatypes, to the upper layers. > The syntax won't be identical to Vala > but as code typically cannot be reused between Vala/GObject and > Vala/POSIX either, I don't expect this to be a big issue. Will still be a C based language? A lot of people are used to C in micro land ;) (On a side note I'm not sure that I like the result = blah of the dova profile, it reminds me vb6 when you have to write funcion_name = blah, and I think that return blah is still better and more clear) > >Regards, > Jürg Regards, Andrea P.S. Now I included also the vala- list... Do I already said that I hate this web email client? _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
