C or C++ for FOSS/linux? - Linux

This is a discussion on C or C++ for FOSS/linux? - Linux ; C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with linux and FOSS in general? -- If you have walked all these days with closed ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

  1. C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    linux and FOSS in general?

    --
    If you have walked all these days with closed ears and
    mind asleep, wake up now! -- Gandalf


  2. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Beowulf writes:
    > C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    > contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    > linux and FOSS in general?


    C. More programs are written in C than C++.
    You can easily find statistics.

    --
    __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
    Kitty like plastic.
    Confuses for litter box.
    Don't leave tarp around.

  3. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Beowulf wrote:

    > C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    > contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    > linux and FOSS in general?


    99.9% of linux drivers are written in C. Of user space tools,
    the majority of then are written in C. However, most KDE programs
    are written in C++.

    So C is probably the most useful to learn unless you will mainly
    be contributing to KDE.

    Erik
    --
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    Erik de Castro Lopo
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    Java sucks. C sucks slightly less so, but only because it makes
    no pretense at all about being a high level language.

  4. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Beowulf writes:

    > C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    > contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    > linux and FOSS in general?


    Whichever you prefer -- except drivers, which pretty much have to be
    in C (I've seen some Linux drivers written in C++. It Isn't
    Pretty).
    --
    Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
    Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
    New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

  5. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Beowulf said the following, on 12/28/2006 05:31 PM:
    > C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    > contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    > linux and FOSS in general?
    >


    It depends on the sort of projects you want to work on. C++ would be
    good if you want to work primarily on X (CUI) applications. KDE, for
    example, is largely C++ based. On the other hand, if you really want to
    write drivers, or other low-level software, C is what you want.

    If you're not sure, I'd suggest starting with C. It's a smaller, less
    complex language; and general knowledge of C will be useful in many
    Linux/Unix contexts.


    --
    Rich Gibbs
    richg74@gmail.com
    "You can observe a lot by watching." -- Yogi Berra


  6. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:31:26 -0600) it happened Beowulf
    wrote in
    :

    >C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    >contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping with
    >linux and FOSS in general?


    C.
    C++ is not a language but speech disability.
    Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after reading
    his book.
    It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading sucks and is for dummies.
    Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.

  7. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Jan Panteltje typed

    > On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:31:26 -0600) it happened Beowulf
    > wrote in
    > :
    >
    >>C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    >>contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping
    >>with linux and FOSS in general?

    >
    > C.
    > C++ is not a language but speech disability.


    You seem to have a serious thinking disability, if you meant this
    statement serious...

    > Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after
    > reading his book. It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading
    > sucks and is for dummies.


    no comment...

    > Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.


    The reason, why MS C++ applications are bloated, is not C++ itself. MS
    simply never understood, how to design libraries. Therefore the MFC
    library is nearly unusable. However, C++ in combination with the VCL
    library from Borland or the QT Toolkit is a very elegant and fast
    language, even on the "bloated" windows system.
    The Windows API is even worse than MFC, although it has been written in
    your favourite language C.

    --
    Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    (Rosa Luxemburg)

  8. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On a sunny day (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:21:52 +0100) it happened Sebastian 'lunar'
    Wiesner wrote in :

    >Jan Panteltje typed
    >
    >> On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:31:26 -0600) it happened Beowulf
    >> wrote in
    >> :
    >>
    >>>C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    >>>contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping
    >>>with linux and FOSS in general?

    >>
    >> C.
    >> C++ is not a language but speech disability.

    >
    >You seem to have a serious thinking disability, if you meant this
    >statement serious...


    I mean it serious, yes I fail to see the beauty of C++.


    >> Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after
    >> reading his book. It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading
    >> sucks and is for dummies.

    >
    >no comment...
    >
    >> Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.

    >
    >The reason, why MS C++ applications are bloated, is not C++ itself. MS
    >simply never understood, how to design libraries. Therefore the MFC
    >library is nearly unusable. However, C++ in combination with the VCL
    >library from Borland or the QT Toolkit is a very elegant and fast
    >language, even on the "bloated" windows system.
    >The Windows API is even worse than MFC, although it has been written in
    >your favourite language C.


    You mention Qt.
    It is evil.
    It (Qt4) took almost 4 hours to compile on a Duron 950.
    I have no idea what it gives for that price, I use xforms,
    it compiles in seconds, has only one small lib (libforms).
    And has all the stuff I need and allows one to add stuff,
    and is full GPL.
    And written in C, hasa fdesigng GUI designer to write C code for ye if
    you cannot or do not want to write it yourself.
    Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came out.

    Reminds me to erase that Qt stuff, I need diskspace, downloading Linux
    for PS3 atm.
    ftp://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen...yellowdog/iso/
    bottom of the page
    yellowdog-5.0-phoenix-20061208-PS3.iso
    Maybe I should leave Qt, is KDE ported to QT4 already?
    I hope not.
    khexedit was about the only useful program in KDE for me.
    Oh and kworldview.
    So much for bloat.




    >
    >--
    >Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    > (Rosa Luxemburg)
    >


  9. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Jan Panteltje typed

    > On a sunny day (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:21:52 +0100) it happened Sebastian
    > 'lunar' Wiesner wrote in
    > :
    >
    >>Jan Panteltje typed
    >>
    >>> On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:31:26 -0600) it happened Beowulf
    >>> wrote in
    >>> :
    >>>
    >>>>C or C++, which is better to learn and improve upon for a goal of
    >>>>contributing to open source projects, writing linux drivers, helping
    >>>>with linux and FOSS in general?
    >>>
    >>> C.
    >>> C++ is not a language but speech disability.

    >>
    >>You seem to have a serious thinking disability, if you meant this
    >>statement serious...

    >
    > I mean it serious, yes I fail to see the beauty of C++.
    >
    >
    >>> Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after
    >>> reading his book. It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading
    >>> sucks and is for dummies.

    >>
    >>no comment...
    >>
    >>> Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.

    >>
    >>The reason, why MS C++ applications are bloated, is not C++ itself. MS
    >>simply never understood, how to design libraries. Therefore the MFC
    >>library is nearly unusable. However, C++ in combination with the VCL
    >>library from Borland or the QT Toolkit is a very elegant and fast
    >>language, even on the "bloated" windows system.
    >>The Windows API is even worse than MFC, although it has been written
    >>in your favourite language C.

    >
    > You mention Qt.
    > It is evil.
    > It (Qt4) took almost 4 hours to compile on a Duron 950.
    > I have no idea what it gives for that price, I use xforms,
    > it compiles in seconds, has only one small lib (libforms).


    You cannot compare xforms to qt4. xforms is afaik a pure gui library. Qt
    supports socket programming, xml parsing and sql support. It's not only
    a library, but a complete toolkit replacing almost a dozen of separate
    libraries. That makes it big.
    I would never use QT for writing a system tools, but for a userspace
    utility with a fancy GUI it's perfect...

    > And has all the stuff I need and allows one to add stuff,
    > and is full GPL.


    QT is full GPL, so where's the point?

    > Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came out.


    Well, things have grown a bit since linux 0.8, you know... Did you ever
    try compiling a recent all-batteries-included linux kernel with
    everything enabled on an old machine? Takes even longer than four
    hours...

    > Reminds me to erase that Qt stuff, I need diskspace, downloading Linux
    > for PS3 atm.
    > ftp://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen...yellowdog/iso/
    > bottom of the page
    > yellowdog-5.0-phoenix-20061208-PS3.iso
    > Maybe I should leave Qt, is KDE ported to QT4 already?
    > I hope not.


    KDE 4 will use QT 4... and I hope, KDE 4 comes soon, it will certainly
    easy KDE programming. The KDE 3 apis become a bit of inconsistent over
    the years...

    > khexedit was about the only useful program in KDE for me.
    > Oh and kworldview.
    > So much for bloat.


    Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out there
    (including me), that think different. In my opinion KDE is the most
    complete desktop environment nowadays and most of the KDE apps are just
    fine. KMail is a perfect mail client for me, Knode does its jobs a news
    client and Amarok is the best music player ever...
    Yes, I like KDE, even if it's bloated... But I got a 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4
    with 512 MB of ram inside, so I can go for the bloat, can't I?

    --
    Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    (Rosa Luxemburg)

  10. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On a sunny day (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:30:19 +0100) it happened Sebastian 'lunar'
    Wiesner wrote in :


    >>>> C++ is not a language but speech disability.


    >> I mean it serious, yes I fail to see the beauty of C++.


    >>>> Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after
    >>>> reading his book. It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading
    >>>> sucks and is for dummies.


    >>>> Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.


    >> You mention Qt.
    >> It is evil.
    >> It (Qt4) took almost 4 hours to compile on a Duron 950.
    >> I have no idea what it gives for that price, I use xforms,
    >> it compiles in seconds, has only one small lib (libforms).



    >You cannot compare xforms to qt4. xforms is afaik a pure gui library. Qt
    >supports socket programming, xml parsing and sql support. It's not only
    >a library, but a complete toolkit replacing almost a dozen of separate
    >libraries. That makes it big.
    >I would never use QT for writing a system tools, but for a userspace
    >utility with a fancy GUI it's perfect...



    This is the tendency of bloat.
    The original Unix idea is to have small programs work together.
    You can program for sockets in C in xforms too.
    You can use libxml as much as you like.
    I have even written video + sound applications in xforms, for video
    using libmpeg3 IIRC.
    Why integrate it in a GUI?
    It is more after all these years I see the power of using these small utilities
    and libs more and more.
    Look what it _does_.
    If you want to provide any new origial functionality, then you will still have
    to code it.
    Coding in C is simpler and faster that is Stroussup language.


    >> And has all the stuff I need and allows one to add stuff,
    >> and is full GPL.

    >
    >QT is full GPL, so where's the point?


    Well, try to sell something with Qt in it, based on it,
    then you need a Troll license.

    I can design and sell hardware, add the software as GPL no problem.
    That software will only work with that hardware anyways.
    I do not think Trolltech would agree if I added Qt without a license from them.
    Not that I wanted or even could.


    >> Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came out.


    >Well, things have grown a bit since linux 0.8, you know... Did you ever
    >try compiling a recent all-batteries-included linux kernel with
    >everything enabled on an old machine? Takes even longer than four
    >hours...


    Sure if you want to enable all drivers for everything, are into
    self torture, enable some experimental and unstable ones too, then
    it will take a very long time.
    However on a normal PC there are only a few PCI slots, so it would
    be a bloat fetish to do that, as 4 sure none of that hardware will
    always be present at the same time.
    Compiling a basic kernel with a lot of drivers and functionality takes less
    then an hour on a Duron 950, so much less then Qt4.


    >> khexedit was about the only useful program in KDE for me.
    >> Oh and kworldview.
    >> So much for bloat.

    >
    >Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out there
    >(including me), that think different.


    Sure, and many do not think at all.

    >In my opinion KDE is the most
    >complete desktop environment nowadays and most of the KDE apps are just
    >fine. KMail is a perfect mail client for me, Knode does its jobs a news
    >client and Amarok is the best music player ever...


    Yes, preferences preferences.
    I wrote my own newsreader (NewsFleX) because I missed agent when I moved
    from win 3.1 to Linux, use pine for email, sendmail as mailserver, and
    wrote xmpl music player that is basically a frontend to any other thing
    that plays (mpg123, sox, just add a 'helper').
    NewsFleX is of course written using xforms, xmpl too.


    >Yes, I like KDE, even if it's bloated... But I got a 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4
    >with 512 MB of ram inside, so I can go for the bloat, can't I?


    No, you need a dual P4 3.2 GHz minimum for DVB-S2 satellite these days
    in Europe (HDTV),
    LOL.

    Looks like one day I need to write a simple hex editor to replace khexedit.
    Maybe it already exists, but khexedit is good.
    Oh well.
    I still have an old Suse-7.?? somewhere on a disk, can always boot in that.
    That will run KDE and khexedit.

    I like to write things only once. After that it is no longer new territory.
    Have not written a hex editor yet.





  11. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On 2006-12-29, Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:

    >> Of course MS uses it, that is why MS is so bloated.

    >
    > The reason, why MS C++ applications are bloated, is not C++
    > itself. MS simply never understood, how to design libraries.
    > Therefore the MFC library is nearly unusable. However, C++ in
    > combination with the VCL library from Borland or the QT
    > Toolkit is a very elegant and fast language, even on the
    > "bloated" windows system. The Windows API is even worse than
    > MFC, although it has been written in your favourite language
    > C.


    Wasn't the Windows API written in/for Pascal? Only later were
    "C" versions of the API pasted on.

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! I like my new
    at DENTIST...
    visi.com

  12. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    In Jan Panteltje writes:

    [del]
    >I mean it serious, yes I fail to see the beauty of C++.


    I fail to see beauty in COBOL, fortran, LISP and prolog. It's just a
    very subjective thing. Still, if a project requires it, or when the problem
    looks like it will be easier & faster solvable with a certain language
    I don't particular like, I'll do it.

    >>> Stroussup could not really program, that became clear to me after
    >>> reading his book. It needs too much text, to many :: and overloading
    >>> sucks and is for dummies.


    Operator overloading is useful for template programming, IMHO. Think about
    it - just for a minute ;-)

    [del]

    >You mention Qt.
    >It is evil.
    >It (Qt4) took almost 4 hours to compile on a Duron 950.
    >I have no idea what it gives for that price,


    You probably have to look again, no? Qt has been stuffed with all sorts
    of things: SQL-libraries, screen editors, etc. pp. If you don't want
    to build all that stuff, just disable it *before* running the compiler.

    >I use xforms,
    >it compiles in seconds, has only one small lib (libforms).
    >And has all the stuff I need and allows one to add stuff,
    >and is full GPL.


    Because it concentrates solely on GUI. Qt contains a lot more than that
    and is written as a whole platform. You are comparing apples with oranges
    here. Besides, I don't really like Qt - not because it's bloated, for
    which there are arguments, agreed, but because it reinvents the wheel
    for basic types like strings (QString instead of STL-strings, for
    instance). It does not make it faster as well.

    >And written in C, hasa fdesigng GUI designer to write C code for ye if
    >you cannot or do not want to write it yourself.
    >Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came out.


    [del]
    >Maybe I should leave Qt, is KDE ported to QT4 already?
    >I hope not.
    >khexedit was about the only useful program in KDE for me.


    KDE != Qt. You can use Qt for X in embedded contexts (which I have done,
    yes) with a moderate (in a very modern sense) memory footprint. There's a
    GPL embedded version available, too. BTW, I'm still using fvwm1.

    But anyway, to respond to the original poster: if you want to code in
    kernel context, C is the language of choice, because C++ is not allowed
    in the kernel anyway.

    For any other kind of programming under Linux, my advice would be to
    choose the right language for solving the problem. This may be a scripting
    language like python, perl, ruby, awk, shell scripts, etc. or a classical
    compiler language like C, C++, java, mono, whatever. Study the problem,
    check out what the main features of your program should be and then choose
    the right language for implementing them, without any prejudices, politics
    and without noticing flames from the outside world.

    After all, programming open source should be fun, right?

    CU,
    Uli
    --
    Dipl. Inf. Ulrich Teichert|e-mail: Ulrich.Teichert@gmx.de
    Stormweg 24 |listening to: Cauchemar (Opération S)
    24539 Neumuenster, Germany|Good Looks, Big Deal (Sweatmaster)

  13. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Jan Panteltje typed

    [snip]
    >
    >>You cannot compare xforms to qt4. xforms is afaik a pure gui library.
    >>Qt supports socket programming, xml parsing and sql support. It's not
    >>only a library, but a complete toolkit replacing almost a dozen of
    >>separate libraries. That makes it big.
    >>I would never use QT for writing a system tools, but for a userspace
    >>utility with a fancy GUI it's perfect...

    >
    >
    > This is the tendency of bloat.
    > The original Unix idea is to have small programs work together.
    > You can program for sockets in C in xforms too.
    > You can use libxml as much as you like.
    > I have even written video + sound applications in xforms, for video
    > using libmpeg3 IIRC.
    > Why integrate it in a GUI?


    Well, because when writing a gui app, the results of your code are
    displayed in gui components. So why not use data structures, that can
    be displayed in a gui without the need to reformat them?

    > It is more after all these years I see the power of using these small
    > utilities and libs more and more.
    > Look what it _does_.
    > If you want to provide any new origial functionality, then you will
    > still have to code it.
    > Coding in C is simpler and faster that is Stroussup language.


    int *i = (int *) malloc (100*sizeof(int));

    I don't know much of C programming, but that is known to me as the way
    you allocate an array of 100 integers on the heap in C.
    Well, the c++ way of doing that is just simpler to me:

    int *i = new int[100]

    And for the speed: When referring to the performance of a program, C++
    as fast as C. When you refer to the speed of development, it's hard to
    judge, because it mostly depends on the experience and ability of a
    programmer.

    >>> And has all the stuff I need and allows one to add stuff,
    >>> and is full GPL.

    >>
    >>QT is full GPL, so where's the point?

    >
    > Well, try to sell something with Qt in it, based on it,
    > then you need a Troll license.


    No, that's plain wrong. The GPL doesn't forbid you, to sell you
    software. It only requires you to distribute the software under GPL
    license and provide full access to the sources. Otherwise great
    distributors like Novell or Redhat wouldn't be able to ship QT or KDE
    in their commerical enterprise distributions.
    You only need to buy a QT license from Trolltech, when you want to write
    non-gpl (e.g. close source) software.

    > I can design and sell hardware, add the software as GPL no problem.
    > That software will only work with that hardware anyways.


    That case is - in my opinion - covered by the GPL. Having licensed their
    toolkit under GPL, Trolltech can do exactly nothing against you, if you
    write such a software. But IANAL, so have no proof for my statements.
    If in doubt, you should ask Trolltech itself...

    >>> Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came
    >>> out.

    >
    >>Well, things have grown a bit since linux 0.8, you know... Did you
    >>ever try compiling a recent all-batteries-included linux kernel with
    >>everything enabled on an old machine? Takes even longer than four
    >>hours...

    >
    > Compiling a basic kernel with a lot of drivers and functionality takes
    > less then an hour on a Duron 950, so much less then Qt4.


    Well, than trying compiling the glibc or maybe a server suite like samba
    or apache. That would take hours, too...
    What I'm trying to tell you independently of any certain piece of
    software is, that software is much more complex nowadays than it was
    during the time of linux 0.8. Not only QT, but software in general...

    >>> khexedit was about the only useful program in KDE for me.
    >>> Oh and kworldview.
    >>> So much for bloat.

    >>
    >>Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out there
    >>(including me), that think different.

    >
    > Sure, and many do not think at all.


    nice statement...
    I hope, you did not extend that on my person, too.

    >>In my opinion KDE is the most
    >>complete desktop environment nowadays and most of the KDE apps are
    >>just fine. KMail is a perfect mail client for me, Knode does its jobs
    >>a news client and Amarok is the best music player ever...

    >
    > Yes, preferences preferences.


    Yes preferences! In the end, that's all that matters. People use
    software, because the like it and _prefer_ it over other software.
    People write software, because they _prefer_ their own thing over
    others. And most people _prefer_ to use a modern software like they
    prefer to use a modern technology...
    That's the reason, why we're using electrical lights instead of gas
    lamps... and dvds instead of video tapes and ipods instead of a
    walkman... and Suse 10.2 instead of 7.xx (not that recent suse versions
    are better )
    It's called "evolution"...

    > I still have an old Suse-7.?? somewhere on a disk, can always boot in
    > that. That will run KDE and khexedit.


    Well, it seems, that it's your personal preference to unlink from the
    modern world.
    I guess, that further discussion about this topic is pointless...

    --
    Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    (Rosa Luxemburg)

  14. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Ulrich.Teichert@gmx.de typed

    > Besides, I don't really like Qt - not because it's bloated, for which
    > there are arguments, agreed, but because it reinvents the wheel for
    > basic types like strings (QString instead of STL-strings, for
    > instance). It does not make it faster as well.


    QT is older than STL. By the time, Trolltech started QT there was no STL
    stuff in the C++ standard, so Trolltech integrated their own classes
    instead of relying on non-standard libraries...
    And once classes made into a library, it's difficult to get them out
    again without breaking with most of the legacy code out there...

    > After all, programming open source should be fun, right?


    Definitely! That's, why I use python most of the time


    --
    Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    (Rosa Luxemburg)

  15. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On a sunny day (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100) it happened Sebastian 'lunar'
    Wiesner wrote in :

    >Well, because when writing a gui app, the results of your code are
    >displayed in gui components. So why not use data structures, that can
    >be displayed in a gui without the need to reformat them?


    I am not sure, this is really C++ talk to me.
    I like to make things the way I like them :-)

    >int *i = (int *) malloc (100*sizeof(int));


    Right.


    >I don't know much of C programming, but that is known to me as the way
    >you allocate an array of 100 integers on the heap in C.
    >Well, the c++ way of doing that is just simpler to me:
    >
    >int *i = new int[100]


    Yes 'new' is a useful statement.


    >And for the speed: When referring to the performance of a program, C++
    >as fast as C. When you refer to the speed of development, it's hard to
    >judge, because it mostly depends on the experience and ability of a
    >programmer.


    It slows me down and makes no sense to me to write
    something::something_else

    >> I can design and sell hardware, add the software as GPL no problem.
    >> That software will only work with that hardware anyways.

    >
    >That case is - in my opinion - covered by the GPL. Having licensed their
    >toolkit under GPL, Trolltech can do exactly nothing against you, if you
    >write such a software. But IANAL, so have no proof for my statements.
    >If in doubt, you should ask Trolltech itself...


    Exactly

    >>>> Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came
    >>>> out.


    >Well, than trying compiling the glibc or maybe a server suite like samba
    >or apache. That would take hours, too...


    I have done all that on the same machine, no way as long as Qt4!

    >>>Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out there
    >>>(including me), that think different.

    >>
    >> Sure, and many do not think at all.

    >
    >nice statement...
    >I hope, you did not extend that on my person, too.


    I am sure you do not think sometimes too, as do I.

    >> Yes, preferences preferences.

    >
    >Yes preferences! In the end, that's all that matters. People use
    >software, because the like it and _prefer_ it over other software.
    >People write software, because they _prefer_ their own thing over
    >others. And most people _prefer_ to use a modern software like they
    >prefer to use a modern technology...
    >That's the reason, why we're using electrical lights instead of gas
    >lamps... and dvds instead of video tapes and ipods instead of a
    >walkman... and Suse 10.2 instead of 7.xx (not that recent suse versions
    >are better )
    >It's called "evolution"...


    Well you can argue Vista is evolution after Xp, and MS will confirm that,
    but for sure it brings nothing _new_ to the user, and has him pay
    dearly, and has him / her buy more expensive, more power consuming hardware
    on top, leading to global warming (they say) that will kill us all (they say).

    It can be argued that -as the dinosaurs did, got bigger and bigger and then died-
    that your vision of 'evolution' is just that.
    I see for example all sorts of **** happening in Linux kernel 2.6, that are annoying,
    and were not in 2.4 kernels, are impossible to fathom for me without
    setting apart a few weeks for it, so maybe everybody should do a reality
    check every now and then and stop adding more and more stuff, at least until existing
    stuff works OK.
    I know this will never happen, so then evolution in your sense leads to the end of Linux as
    it does to the end of MS OS.



    >> I still have an old Suse-7.?? somewhere on a disk, can always boot in
    >> that. That will run KDE and khexedit.

    >
    >Well, it seems, that it's your personal preference to unlink from the
    >modern world.


    That is a lot of bull, I hhave always been at the front, or just that one step ahead,
    just as a dummy loading the next kernel (bugs) or latest commercial distro is _not_ progres.
    BTW I use grml now (www.grml.org) but totally modified so it does what I want and does
    not do what I do not want.

    >I guess, that further discussion about this topic is pointless...


    You can never win.

    >Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    > (Rosa Luxemburg)


    To the US general freedom is:
    The freedom to attack whenever and wherever we want.
    (quoted from one US general last year).


  16. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Jan Panteltje typed

    [snip]

    >>I don't know much of C programming, but that is known to me as the way
    >>you allocate an array of 100 integers on the heap in C.
    >>Well, the c++ way of doing that is just simpler to me:
    >>
    >>int *i = new int[100]

    >
    > Yes 'new' is a useful statement.


    One among many others...

    >>>>Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out
    >>>>there (including me), that think different.
    >>>
    >>> Sure, and many do not think at all.

    >>
    >>nice statement...
    >>I hope, you did not extend that on my person, too.

    >
    > I am sure you do not think sometimes too, as do I.


    Yes, every time I'm sleeping or watching the TV program. In fact, the
    latter is inherently dangerous if you don't stop thinking. The standard
    is so low, that your brain would back-evolve into a walnut

    >>> Yes, preferences preferences.

    >>
    >>Yes preferences! In the end, that's all that matters. People use
    >>software, because the like it and _prefer_ it over other software.
    >>People write software, because they _prefer_ their own thing over
    >>others. And most people _prefer_ to use a modern software like they
    >>prefer to use a modern technology...
    >>That's the reason, why we're using electrical lights instead of gas
    >>lamps... and dvds instead of video tapes and ipods instead of a
    >>walkman... and Suse 10.2 instead of 7.xx (not that recent suse
    >>versions are better )
    >>It's called "evolution"...

    >
    > Well you can argue Vista is evolution after Xp, and MS will confirm
    > that, but for sure it brings nothing _new_ to the user, and has him
    > pay dearly, and has him / her buy more expensive, more power consuming
    > hardware on top, leading to global warming (they say) that will kill
    > us all (they say).
    >
    > It can be argued that -as the dinosaurs did, got bigger and bigger and
    > then died- that your vision of 'evolution' is just that.
    > I see for example all sorts of **** happening in Linux kernel 2.6,
    > that are annoying, and were not in 2.4 kernels, are impossible to
    > fathom for me without setting apart a few weeks for it, so maybe
    > everybody should do a reality check every now and then and stop adding
    > more and more stuff, at least until existing stuff works OK.
    > I know this will never happen, so then evolution in your sense leads
    > to the end of Linux as it does to the end of MS OS.


    Well, evolution brought the human race to life, didn't it? So we are
    discussing right now, because ages ago apes evolved homo sapiens...

    >>> I still have an old Suse-7.?? somewhere on a disk, can always boot
    >>> in that. That will run KDE and khexedit.

    >>
    >>Well, it seems, that it's your personal preference to unlink from the
    >>modern world.

    >
    > That is a lot of bull, I hhave always been at the front, or just that
    > one step ahead, just as a dummy loading the next kernel (bugs) or
    > latest commercial distro is _not_ progres. BTW I use grml now
    > (www.grml.org) but totally modified so it does what I want and does
    > not do what I do not want.


    Well, I just wouldn't think that someone still using suse 7.xx is
    involved in the development of modern technologies. Forgive me, if I
    was wrong (seems obvious now)...

    >>I guess, that further discussion about this topic is pointless...

    >
    > You can never win.


    Seen it So I leave you with your option...

    >>Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
    >> (Rosa Luxemburg)

    >
    > To the US general freedom is:
    > The freedom to attack whenever and wherever we want.
    > (quoted from one US general last year).


    Mostly due to misinterpretation of the word "freedom" we are having so
    many problems nowadays...

  17. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    On 2006-12-29, Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
    > Jan Panteltje typed
    >

    [snip]
    >
    > int *i = (int *) malloc (100*sizeof(int));
    >
    > I don't know much of C programming, but that is known to me as the way
    > you allocate an array of 100 integers on the heap in C.


    Wrong; it's:

    int *i = malloc (100*sizeof(int));

    You should not cast the value returned by malloc; that can mask
    errors.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, author |
    Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
    A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
    2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

  18. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    "Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:

    > On 2006-12-29, Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
    >> Jan Panteltje typed
    >>

    > [snip]
    >>
    >> int *i = (int *) malloc (100*sizeof(int));
    >>
    >> I don't know much of C programming, but that is known to me as the way
    >> you allocate an array of 100 integers on the heap in C.

    >
    > Wrong; it's:
    >
    > int *i = malloc (100*sizeof(int));
    >
    > You should not cast the value returned by malloc; that can mask
    > errors.


    I have heard this before : but what errors can it mask?

    If its non null you have the memory ...

  19. Qt and basic types Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Ulrich.Teichert@gmx.de wrote:

    > Besides, I don't really like Qt - not because it's bloated, for
    > which there are arguments, agreed, but because it reinvents the wheel
    > for basic types like strings (QString instead of STL-strings, for
    > instance). It does not make it faster as well.


    AFAIK, the reason why Qt still ships with some classes which are equivalent
    to STL's is that when Qt was first released there were some basic types
    which not only weren't available in all platforms but also there weren't
    any certainties that the implementations which could be present would all
    be equivalent and behave the same way. So in order to avoid those
    uncertanties (existence and behaviour) Qt's people just added their own.

    Since then I believe that those problems no not matter anymore. Yet, the Qt
    community had already written it's fair share of apps which used Qt's
    classes. IMVHO it would be great if Qt4 removed each and every class which
    is equivalent to any STL class but it seems that the people from Trolltech
    don't see it that way, unfortunately.


    Best regards
    Rui Maciel
    --
    Running Kubuntu 6.10 with KDE 3.5.5 and proud of it.
    jabber:rui_maciel@jabber.org

  20. Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    >>I would never use QT for writing a system tools, but for a userspace
    >>utility with a fancy GUI it's perfect...

    >
    >
    > This is the tendency of bloat.
    > The original Unix idea is to have small programs work together.
    > You can program for sockets in C in xforms too.
    > You can use libxml as much as you like.
    > I have even written video + sound applications in xforms, for video
    > using libmpeg3 IIRC.
    > Why integrate it in a GUI?


    You seem to be a bit confused. Qt isn't only a GUI toolkit. Qt is a
    cross-platform development toolkit. It's purpose is to enable any
    programmer to write code (GUI, sockets, 3D, SQL, etc...) which can run on
    any platform supported by Qt. Nonetheless, if you wish to simply use it to
    write GUIs then you are free to do so. No one is forcing anyone to use Qt's
    sockets (or any other socket library, for that matter) to write a text
    editor.


    > It is more after all these years I see the power of using these small
    > utilities and libs more and more.
    > Look what it _does_.
    > If you want to provide any new origial functionality, then you will still
    > have to code it.
    > Coding in C is simpler and faster that is Stroussup language.


    Simpler and faster? Answer me this: when writing a C programmer what do you
    do when you need a simple data structure like a linked list?


    >>QT is full GPL, so where's the point?

    >
    > Well, try to sell something with Qt in it, based on it,
    > then you need a Troll license.
    >
    > I can design and sell hardware, add the software as GPL no problem.
    > That software will only work with that hardware anyways.
    > I do not think Trolltech would agree if I added Qt without a license from
    > them. Not that I wanted or even could.


    Trolltech would only have a problem with you if you tried to ship their GPL
    code under a non-GPL license.


    >>> Qt 4 is the worst bloat I have seen in Linux since Linux 0.8 came out.

    >
    >>Well, things have grown a bit since linux 0.8, you know... Did you ever
    >>try compiling a recent all-batteries-included linux kernel with
    >>everything enabled on an old machine? Takes even longer than four
    >>hours...

    >
    > Sure if you want to enable all drivers for everything, are into
    > self torture, enable some experimental and unstable ones too, then
    > it will take a very long time.
    > However on a normal PC there are only a few PCI slots, so it would
    > be a bloat fetish to do that, as 4 sure none of that hardware will
    > always be present at the same time.
    > Compiling a basic kernel with a lot of drivers and functionality takes
    > less then an hour on a Duron 950, so much less then Qt4.


    You are being silly. Compiling Qt4 (that is, compiling the entire toolkit in
    order for each and every Qt component to work, as useless or obscure as it
    may be) is very similar to compiling the entire kernel tree. If we took out
    the support for stuff like SQL, network, OpenGL, XML, SVG, etc... obviously
    it would be less stuff to compile and therefore it would be quicker to do
    so, much like your "compiling a basic kernel for a normal PC" example.


    >>Well, that's your taste. There are millions of other people out there
    >>(including me), that think different.

    >
    > Sure, and many do not think at all.


    Exactly. That's why they feel compelled to troll.


    Best regards
    Rui Maciel
    --
    Running Kubuntu 6.10 with KDE 3.5.5 and proud of it.
    jabber:rui_maciel@jabber.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast