Message-Id: <200005090032.UAA22405@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: Message from Brook Conner <nellardo@concentric.net>  of "Mon, 08 May 2000 19:10:29 EDT." <39173ACF.2938AB8D@concentric.net> 
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:32:47 -0400
Subject: Re: OT - programming logflash Re: [lojban] Logflash 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2855
Lines: 77


>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> >> No, I meant I'm doing a complete rewrite from the algorithm statement, in
>> >> C, using ncurses.
>
><programming-language-rant>
>
>Eeek. How painful.
>
>> >       Using C is probably a very good idea,
>> 
>> Strongly agree.
>
>Ooof. Okay if the author is really only comfortable in C, I suppose. But
>this is really a case of using the wrong tool to get the job done.
>You'll spend more time on memory management, parsing the file, and
>tweaking ncurses than you will on any substantive flashcard
>functionality. IMNSHO.  At least do yourself a favor and use the GNU
>readline lib, if you really can't stand using a programming language
>more suited to the task (such as Perl, a perfectly awful programming
>language that is amazingly useful).  

You're right; I was simply stating a preference for C over Pascal, a
language I hate.  I'm considering learning Python, because while Perl is
an excellent tool for text manipulation, it's looks so thoroughly like
line noise that I can't bring myself to program in it anymore.

>For that matter, Pascal is not particularly well-suited to programming
>something like Logflash (clearly, it can be done - the point is that
>other languages do it more easily).

<nod>

>> >using ANSI/POSIX would be yet even better so that it is very portable
>> >at the end (I can help you with that),
>
>ANSI C with Posix libraries is hardly the most portable of possible
>solutions....  but I digress

<grin>

>> Agree.  GNU autoconf is also good.
>
>Again, probably not the best tool for the job, and, while easy to use
>for people compiling someone else's code, it's a bitch and a half to set
>up, and the macros are just from hell.

Never used it as a programmer, but as a user, if you're going for
cross-unix portability, it doesn't get any better that I'm aware of.  If
I was a programmer, I'd use it from the start in any new UNIX projects
(I'm a sysadmin; too task-oriented to be a programmer) regardless of the
headache involved.  The results are just too nice to ignore.

></programming-language-rant>
> 
>> >and of course make it GPL'ed. ;-))
>> 
>> Strongly disagree.  The GPL is viral in a very virulent and obnoxious
>> way.  Use the LGPL or put it in the public domain or something.
>
>Oh, I'm not even gonna deal with this one - take it to slashdot, kids.

Heh heh.  We took it offline.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
As a  member of the Hans Solo School of Action Before Thought, Welcome,
You've Got Male.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/17627/_/957832483/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com