Re: softwarew portability

From: sleeper75se (sleeper75se_at_yahoo.se)
Date: 2002-03-14 20:00:17


--- In buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com, "yaniv_vi" <yaniv_vi_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> so still , if i don't want to use linux on the embedded version
> there would be still some issues open:
> what language would be the pc software ? what language would be the
> embedded software ?

What kind of platform are you thinking of? It looks like we will try
Java first, because that is what most people are comfortable with.

> my best guess on the embedded software is c .
> so any simple ways of porting from c++ to c? and from java to c ?

Not that I am aware of, sorry. You will probably have to do a scaled
down C++/Java version for PC first, and then rewrite it by hand for
your embedded platform.

> are there any real time issues ? i don't know of any , assuming are
> processor won't be lazy :)

If you have the CPU-power and won't use a regular OS, then you set
the pace...
>
> anyway , i want to start doing something on a usefull basic
version
> both for embedded and pc that would have basic capabilities ( why
> pc ? isn't rob's version enough ? no it's lacking a little option
> of both training for increasing a band and decreasing other band.

I've played with it, and it feels a bit bare-bones (not having any
experience or equipment for biofeedback). Perhaps you could work out
a specification with George von H? It could be useful for the non-
embedded application too.

Regards,

Andreas



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:41 BST