Re: [gomd-devel] Re: more thoughts

[Ramon Pons Vivanco]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:40:53 +0100, Mirko Caserta wrote:

> I was thinking about avoiding all the problems related to g++ name
> mangling writing the library in pure C. To me it makes more sense writing
> the library in C and using it in the daemon which will be written in c++. 

This is a good question.

> After all, all libgomd should do is reading some files from the /proc
> interface which probably is not going to need to involve the complexities
> of OOP.
> 
> What do you think?

Pros to C:
        * userland and openMosix written in C. If we finally merge gomd + 
libgomd +
          userland C will be nice
        * Unix and Linux are written in C
        * Easyest
Pros to C++:
        * High level
        * Iterators
        * libcommoncpp
        * STL

Really, I don't know ...

> > I am thinking of re-creating the gomd-project manually too.
> 
> You're on your own on this field. I've always had a bad relationship with
> autoconf/automake :) By the way you pointed out good thoughts to which I
> agree.

This will be a nice moment to start learning automake/autoconf (even for me !!)

> > ...........and for sure we can use both of the manual generated project
> > in every editor or/and kdevelop. e.g. i can/will generate kdeveloper
> > project files for the manual created project.
> 
> I agree. Each of us uses his own editor/IDE of choice. For instance, I use
> Netbeans which has a quite good c/c++ support. It has a memory footprint
> of about 200MBs but with my 512MB RAM I can afford it :)

Just 2 works:
        emacs21 rocks !

-- 
 .''`.                Why is a cow? Mu. (Ommmmmmmmmm)
: :' :
`. `'    Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (Kernel 2.4.20) on Ext3
  `-                 http://laurel.datsi.fi.upm.es/~rpons/

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win.                                    -- Mahatma Gandhi