nanogui: State of the nanogui union?
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
29 Sep 1999 12:44:02 -0000
Message-Id: <008d01bf0a77$5663cbb0$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.####
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
> >Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question. :-)
> >
> >How about C++ instead of macro hackery?
>
> I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
> box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
> anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might consume
> almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
> with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.
So... strip the C++ library. I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes.
> Besides, all the macro hackery is in one 99 lines long header file...
> The rest is a lot cleaner thanks to the macro ugliness. I'm sure it
> can be done even cleaner too, if more time is spent on it.
OK, I should look at it.
> It's a very simple system with classes with only virtual methods, and
> objects which contains a pointer to the appropriate class structure as
> it's first member.
>
> >Brad ducks. :-)
>
> /me whips out his bazooka and blows Brad's head off... :-)
You meanie! :-)
> Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical
stuff.
Isn't that just a myth?
Regards,
Brad
