From: Waldemar Neto (wpneto_at_o...)
Date: 2001-05-21 03:20:47
> in fact the difference is not large enough .
I keep in mind for above a little modular driver that gets and update the adc data like a mouse routine ( int 33 ) .
That "Kernel" wouldn't demand so much ( by the way , will it use an interrupt hook , or RS232 has it "built in"? ) .
If the idea is to plan a full analysis and processing system then it should be C++ , for sure .
( as I suggested to use in may17 message)
But yet, the little driver for Linux would come well , ( someone has toldme there's already a kind of version o C++
for Linux - but I''ve no details about it .
Regards
I think we should plan to build our source code from
the building blocks of C++ classes. This isn't possible
with C.
> in fact the difference is not large enough .
I don't understand why you say this. It seems to me
that the difference is enormous. It's like the difference
between a Wright Brothers airplane and a 747.
Just one C++ feature alone -- virtual function tables --
are so powerful and wonderful that they change a
whole program radically.
----- Original Message -----
From: Waldemar Neto
To: buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [buildcheapeeg] PC software
The use of 1989 standard C make the routine directly suitable
for Linux, ( beyond Windows and DOS ) .
Otherwise the effort to convert C++ to 1989 standard C is the almost
the same to vice-versa .
I think standard C is the best language for that purpose, but we could also do both ( driver do Linux ) and ( ocx or DLL for Windows ), in fact the difference is not large enough .
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
buildcheapeeg-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:30 BST