From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Mon May 08 17:34:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17350 invoked from network); 9 May 2000 00:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 May 2000 00:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 May 2000 00:33:18 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22405 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 20:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005090032.UAA22405@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: OT - programming logflash Re: [lojban] Logflash In-Reply-To: Message from Brook Conner of "Mon, 08 May 2000 19:10:29 EDT." <39173ACF.2938AB8D@concentric.net> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:32:47 -0400 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell >Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> No, I meant I'm doing a complete rewrite from the algorithm statement, in >> >> C, using ncurses. > > > >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). >> >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 >> 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. > > >> >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.