[openbeosnetteam] Re: PPP: dial-on-demand
- From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <Waldemar.Kornewald@xxxxxx>
- To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 17:07:12 +0200
> > The 10 MB bloat is only there because we use a static library.
> > For R2 we could introduce a C++ stack without having the bloat.
> > Currently, it is just a workaround. It will work, but not as
> > efficient as it
> > could do.
> > After R1 it will work very good. Or do you think differently?
>
> Yes, I do - I don't want to have that bloat in R1, even if it's only
> temporary, at least not for the whole stack.
Then, the best solution is to implement shared kernel libs for R1. ;)
If we had shared libs support in the kernel which language would you prefer
for this task?
> > It is clear that nobody should ever want to create an instance of the
> > manager object, but this is the same as making all methods public and
> > saying
> > that some methods must not be used because they are internal methods,
> > though
> > they are defined public.
>
> If the ppp stuff is clearly separated from the rest, and the
> libkernel_ppp.a is reasonably small, I wouldn't mind if you go C++ only
> there - just take care of what you do.
The templates that I use for the implementation could blow up the code to
200K, possibly. :(
Without the templates and void* lists it could be reduced to around 80-100K
(these are only expected values because currently nothing compiles).
How can you produce 50K of code in two weeks? I needed more than two months
to get that far! :)
How many hours do you work on the project per week (this is a question to
all of you)?
> > Probably we have the wrong programming language, but that is another
> > topic.
> > :)
>
> I have to disagree: C is not the wrong language, C++ is just better :)
Both have the problem that they do not produce good code on their own. ;)
> > FSM_info structure even if you should not do that.
>
> #define private public
> ;-)
I will put it into cpp.h. :)
Waldemar
Other related posts:
