Github (was Re: Free lightweight C++ signals and slots library)

J

Jorgen Grahn

Hi,

I present "neosigslot" a new, free to use/modify, lightweight signals
and slots library that has the following features: ....
http://i42.co.uk/stuff/neosigslot.htm

Side note: I am a bit surprised that people don't generally use Github
(or Git in general) for these things. None of the three or so recent
announcements have pointed to a Git repository.

/Jorgen
 
J

Jorgen Grahn

Git? Hiss! Boo! The author of Git hates C++!

As the saying goes in .se: even a blind hen sometimes finds a corn of
grain.

The best strategy is to (a) laugh at them, (b) ignore their clown acts
and (c) use the grains they actually *do* find.

/Jorgen
 
R

Rui Maciel

Leigh said:
Git? Hiss! Boo! The author of Git hates C++!

In spite of what Linus Torvalds might think about C++, he did an exquisite
job with Git. It would be silly to miss out on an excellent tool just
because the guy who developed it had an opinion on something.


Rui Maciel
 
B

Bernd Nawothnig

Linus is certainly not fond of C++,

The actual Git maintainer is Junio Hamano and not Linus Torvalds even
if Linus once started the Git development.

And Linus is for sure not against C++. He himself once tried to use
C++ in the Linux kernel. The experiment was not successful, but that
was only because of memory and CPU limitation in those days. It was
possible to compile the kernel, but that could last for many days
which was considered to be inacceptable.
but how does that bear on the usefulness of Git for C++ projects? I
assume he dislikes Cobol as well, but Git ought to work well there
too.

Of course. You can put any data under the control of Git. Git tracks
the whole content not specific files.



Bernd
 
R

Rui Maciel

Bernd said:
And Linus is for sure not against C++. He himself once tried to use
C++ in the Linux kernel. The experiment was not successful, but that
was only because of memory and CPU limitation in those days. It was
possible to compile the kernel, but that could last for many days
which was considered to be inacceptable.

The man has a notorious dislike for C++, which he repeatedly expressed
publicly, and not for the reasons you pointed out.

http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/


Rui Maciel
 
J

Jorgen Grahn

As the saying goes in .se: even a blind hen sometimes finds a corn of
grain.

And rereading that last posting, I see that I got sidetracked by your
ironic remark.

My real point is: it's much more convenient and useful to hand out
version trees to people, than to hand out snapshots of version 1.0,
1.1 and so on. The connection between your versions and their
versions is never broken that way. Git lets you do this *and* it
seems to get accepted in all kinds of environments these days.
I don't think that has happened before.

/Jorgen
 
W

woodbrian77

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:21:15 AM UTC-5, Bernd Nawothnig wrote:
Of course. You can put any data under the control of Git. Git tracks the whole content not specific files.

-------------------------------------------

I'm frustrated. I know there are a lot of good
programmers here, but am perplexed at the
foolishness of so many. The phrase "under the
control of Git" is helpful I think for making
my point. How do you think GitHub would react
if you want to take part of your project out
of it's control and make it closed source?
Would they tell themselves that they have
nurtured your project and helped you build
it and now you've betrayed them?

Currently I have some open source code here --
http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html
..
There's a library and two executables in the
archive. The executables are the middle and
front tiers of an on line code generator.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the middle
tier will stay open source. Someone with a
lot of networking experience has hinted
that is may need to be closed source for
security reasons. (I don't have plans to
make the middle tier closed source at this
time, but could see doing so in the future.)

At any rate, I would be very cautious about
what I put into something like GitHub. If
you later determined the need to make a part
of it closed source, be prepared for the
community to react badly to that.

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
Making programming fun again
http://webEbenezer.net


"There are four character types among people.
One who says, 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours' is of average character, and some say, this is the character of Sodom.
[One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine' is unlearned (lit., [of] the people of the land).
[One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours' is pious.
[One who says] 'What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine' is wicked."
 
R

Rui Maciel

I'm frustrated. I know there are a lot of good
programmers here, but am perplexed at the
foolishness of so many. The phrase "under the
control of Git" is helpful I think for making
my point. How do you think GitHub would react
if you want to take part of your project out
of it's control and make it closed source?
Would they tell themselves that they have
nurtured your project and helped you build
it and now you've betrayed them?

As far as I know, GitHub is a for-profit hosting company, which so happens
to provide a freebie public service for open source projects. Meanwhile, it
also sells hosting services for private, non-open source projects.[¹] This
is a good indicator that they don't really care how you license your
projects.

In addition, they don't control anything. They host data their users send
them. They also make no claim regarding intellectual property or copyright
on any content provided by users.[2] Also, they base their service on a
tool which was designed to keep track of changes in a decentralized manner,
without relying on a centralized repository.

Knowing this, I believe we can agree that your comment is silly and lacks a
factual basis.


Rui Maciel

[¹] https://github.com/plans
[2] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service
 
N

none

There's a library and two executables in the
archive. The executables are the middle and
front tiers of an on line code generator.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the middle
tier will stay open source. Someone with a
lot of networking experience has hinted
that is may need to be closed source for
security reasons. (I don't have plans to
make the middle tier closed source at this
time, but could see doing so in the future.)

Just make sure you are not simply attempting to implement
security-by-obscurity.

Yannick
 
O

ootiib

Bernd Nawothnig wrote:





The man has a notorious dislike for C++, which he repeatedly expressed

publicly, and not for the reasons you pointed out.

It is understandable ... sort of. Good C++ is pure fucking magic for wielders of other languages.

Most of C compiles with C++ compiler, yes. Still the ideology and common idioms are way too different. C++ has tremendous amount of extensions that donot mix too well with C. When things do not mix then there is a need for wrappers in interfaces between the two. Wrappers usually add code bloat and lower efficiency. It is generally a good idea to keep a code base in one compiled language and in one script language.

Bashing C++ angrily is one easy way to achieve that no one offers C++ into C project. Doing it fits well with the humorous nature of that old geek. His software is good, well thought out and free so what is the problem?

I had recently similar experience with a friendly Java team. One of their tools took hours to run and the client was not too happy and funds were found to pay my help. I am weak with Java i wrote C++. It took me a week and half. My version ran under two minutes. It was quite straight no tricks (no aid of GPU or something). They were happy and decided to translate my program into Java themselves. It took two man-weeks of good Java specialist and their version now runs ~10 minutes.

So they agreed to pay with 5 times efficiency drop and two man-weeks of effort solely to get rid of a risk that they may need to maintain C++ when a change or hot-fix is needed AND i get hit by bus or abducted by aliens. Veryreasonable cost. ;)
 
J

Jorgen Grahn

.
Bashing C++ angrily is one easy way to achieve that no one offers
C++ into C project. Doing it fits well with the humorous nature of
that old geek. His software is good, well thought out and free so what
is the problem?

The problem is it helps feeding the prejudice against C++. Newbies
repeat what Linus says, and old C programmers have another excuse not
to learn anything new.

/Jorgen
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top