 | | API changes
|
| In using legOS, I've found that many of the design decisions seem somewhat backwards, and I think that this is due to a desire to keep the interface as similar as possible to NQC. I was wondering what people would think about changing the core API (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: API changes
|
| (...) These seems to me good ideas. Adding errno would also be useful. bye Bernardo New e-mail: dibbe@freestation.it (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: API changes
|
| My only concern with these proposed changes is possible increased memory usage. Encapsulation, error reporting, thread synchronisation etc are nice; but with just 32k of RAM I would question whether these are appropriate for some applications. For (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: API changes
|
| (...) I don't imagine that these changes will increase memory usage much, since they are largely just re-working existing features. I will look into the memory usage before releasing, though. In fact, I think that after I redid the networking a bit (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: API changes
|
| I'm actually on my way to my baccalaureate ceremony right now, but I do want to say that I feel very strongly that API changes for the sake of API changes should not be checked in. The current API, while not always intuitive, is well documented and (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: API changes
|
| I agree with most of Luis statement. I've worked for three years in the embedded software development (for cars), and I think it's quite dangerous to have RCX functions with the same name that Unix ones, because they don't do the same thing. Using (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| |
