> rob, 'allo,
Please reply to the message to which you are replying to.
> let things calm down a bit. apologies about the mistakes, i was a bit
> upset by what you wrote. that's for me to deal with, but... all the
> same - sorry for the consequences.
>
> yeah i am not particularly enamoured with gobject either. its
> dependence on glib, which is supposed to be platform-independent, is a
> bit... eugh.
It's not platform-independent. It just happens to work on platforms it
has been ported to.
> i've been looking around at the alternatives (the embedded
> alternatives, which stand a chance of being smaller and designed for
> the job). they all require c++ with one exception: the phillips / nxp
> common object model (again "inspired by" COM). unfortunately, its
> bloody compiler nxpidl appears to only be available from phillips,
> directly. arse.
Indeed, and it probably does not have an especially delightful licence.
> so i am going to persist with trying to get tangramCOM up-and-running.
> when you get right down to the basics, it's *not* heavy-weight, does
> *not* require large amounts of win32 code, and the design is supposed
> to be completely independent of OLE[32] so doesn't need _that_
> heap-o-junk dragged in.
*Any* amount of Win32 code is no-go. Limit yourself to ANSI C, and we
might have a goer.
> ... i may be some time.... but that's ok because you're about a year
> off of tackling this anyway.
If not more.
B.
No comments:
Post a Comment