| Author |
Message |
Active8
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:04:40 GMT, Scott Stephens wrote:
| Quote: | Active8 wrote:
To rephrase Rene's statement: a callback is what you use if a function
'foo' needs to be written now, which has to call another function
'bar' that may not exist yet.
http://gethelp.devx.com/techtips/cpp_pro/10min/10min0300.asp
quote
A callback function is one that is not invoked explicitly by the
programmer; rather the responsibility for its invocation is
delegated to another function that receives the callback function's
address.
/quote
Period.
Even an empty function is an *implementation* of a function.
But an empty function is not part of this design --- there's just the
prototype, and a *pointer* to such a function.
Isn't that called an interface? Aren't MS COM objects (such as dhtml
Active-X objects) an example of such? The COM object interface are
pointers to an object-specific array of pointers.
|
In Java, COM, DCOM, OLE, etc., they are called interfaces. In C++,
"prototype" and "function declaration", are synonymous. A function
name without parameters is a pointer, but you can also declare a
variable name for a pointer to a function with a... call it a
special syntax. You knew that, right?
ActiveX really is a good way to write reusable code - DLLs on
steroids. And the remote access (DCOM+/RPC) capability is the balls.
Version control is a positive side benefit of the whole
architecture. It's still a mess - a miracle that MS could pull it
off IMO.
DHTML isn't a COM thing, it's a DOM thing.
--
Best Regards,
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Meindert Sprang
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:41cb3e0a$0$6217$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
Ehrr, does that WIN98SE include the equivalent set of applications,
including all source code?
Apples and pears again....
| Quote: | It is not that it is a lost art or something,
for instance PocketPC Windows doesn't take up that much space either.
|
Compare it to Palm OS and it's applications and you'll see that even
PocketPC is bloatware. Do you remember the phrase that WinCE brought back
the hourglass on the PDA...
| Quote: | My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
|
Tsss, compare a Internet Explorer with FireFox: half an OS compared to a
browser pur sang.
| Quote: | But I could be wrong about all that.
|
Yes.
| Quote: | I don't look at the size of an application to judge it's value. Who knows
what's in there, or wants to know.
|
Well, the moment "hello world" produces an .exe of over 400kbyte, I do like
to know....
| Quote: | Yes, and nobody seems to be able to deliver. Have you tried open-office ?
Last time I checked, their spreadsheet was about 5 times slower than an
older version of Excel (2000).
|
Unfortunately, you ARE right here :-) OO really sucks with that.
Meindert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Everett M. Greene
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> writes:
| Quote: | My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's.
|
If you believe that statement, you're posting to the wrong
newsgroup.
| Quote: | Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
|
They may well indeed not be stupid, but having the wrong
mind-set, values, or whatever is applicable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:58 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
|
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Fremont
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:15 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote
That's because you get all the source code and about 3000 other
applications as well. You should download a Knoppix live cd and see
what comes packed on that. You just stick it in your drive and boot it.
It detects all your hardware on the fly at boot time, no installation
required.
| Quote: | A complete WIN98SE installation directory is 109MB.
|
A fresh install of XP with a copy of Office is about 3GB, that's a bit
fat don't you think?
| Quote: | One does NOT need hundreds of megabytes for a GUI based desktop
userinterface. Also look at RiscOS 3.11 that was available on a
No, but it comes as hundreds of megabytes these days, because there
is little reason to squeeze it in less. What I remember from ~10 years
back is that windows 3.x came on a bunch of floppies. That were
perhaps 20 floppies or 30MB. Those were also the days that you really
|
That's just plain wrong, Win 3.11 came on 6 floppies. It literally
boots in about 2 seconds on anything faster than 200Mhz, I really need
to dig out that old 40MB drive and try it on my p4 now. ;-)
Gem desktop ran on an 8088, loaded up quick and gave me a high-res
desktop with task switching. It was allot better than Win286. AIR, it
came on 1 5.25" floppy.
| Quote: | ran out of memory or disk space, if you were careless. Today I don't
bother about it all. I save/keep everything, even emails that have
megabyte attachements. It is not that it is a lost art or something,
for instance PocketPC Windows doesn't take up that much space either.
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
|
Yes they are, but it's not about stupidity. It's about selling stuff.
It's just simple collusion between the hardware makers and MS. Why do
you think Intel pushes software based hardware (printers, modems, sound
cards, etc...)? HP needs at least four background start-up tasks just
to run a printer as well as the driver. It's just to make sure you want
something faster. OEMS preload so much junk onto new machines that they
are crawling right out of the box. What about the fact that Excel
contained a full 3D flight simulator game easter-egg? How can that not
qualify as bloat?
| Quote: | But I could be wrong about all that. My buggiest application is
Protel.
It is full of bugs. That said, I find it a brilliant piece of
software.
[snip]
The expectation that one needs multi-megabyte applications, that has
been created largely by Microsoft is actually holding things up
these
I don't look at the size of an application to judge it's value. Who
knows
what's in there, or wants to know.
|
You should, if you put personal information into it.
| Quote: | days. Todays hardware, with apps written a bit better would be
unbelievably fast.
Yes, and nobody seems to be able to deliver. Have you tried
open-office ?
Last time I checked, their spreadsheet was about 5 times slower than
an
older version of Excel (2000).
|
It's written in Java, what would you expect? It also didn't cost
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. Have you tried the latest
version of Excel? I promise you that it loads whole lot slower than the
2000 version. Maybe if you press the right keys and click in the right
spots, you can get "Monster Truck Madness" to play. Perhaps even HALO-2
will be available after the install of the next MS Office Service Pack.
;-)
| Quote: | But here is a great oppertunity for you. You only have to write it a
'bit' better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Bemelman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
|
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
| Quote: | I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
|
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that? I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen. Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
There's a lot to complain about Windows, but I am reasonably happy with
it. The buffer overflow issue is blown out of proportion, it's not really
an issue. Heh, I don't even run antivirus software.
Most trouble I see is caused by non-microsoft application software.
Like Acrobat reader, still use 5.0, tried 6.0 and ditched it after
5 minutes.
--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Bemelman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> schreef in bericht
news:agXyd.4189$3v5.1441@fe2.texas.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote
Yes, and nobody seems to be able to deliver. Have you tried
open-office ?
Last time I checked, their spreadsheet was about 5 times slower than
an
older version of Excel (2000).
It's written in Java, what would you expect? It also didn't cost
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. Have you tried the latest
|
You get what you pay for. Open office costs nothing, and I didn't
like it. I don't care why, Java or not. Excel does it better, and
yes, I have paid for it and helped reasing the 100 millions to
develop it. I have no problems with that.
| Quote: | version of Excel? I promise you that it loads whole lot slower than the
2000 version. Maybe if you press the right keys and click in the right
spots, you can get "Monster Truck Madness" to play. Perhaps even HALO-2
will be available after the install of the next MS Office Service Pack.
;-)
|
I'm not going to upgrade my Excel. There's no need. When I buy my next
new computer I may purchase a new office bundle with it. As long as I
don't get the monster trucks popping up with every mistake I make, I
am sure I am going to enjoy it ;)
--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:30:07 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | "John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
|
The hardware struggles to keep up with the bloat of Windows. My
current PC has roughly a thousand times more compute power than my
first DOS machine, boots in about 20x the time, and crashes maybe 10x
as often. That's progress?
| Quote: | I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that?
|
Well, my stuff starts up instantly and runs 24/7 for decades without
crashing. The sources are more comment than code, so maintenance is
easy.
Every Windows source module has a mandatory header, that's supposed to
document the function, the author, and the revs. A typical module will
have some gibberish name, and in the header section called "Module
Function" the author generally fills in something like (I quote) "what
it says".
Comments are rare and, when they do exist, are often useless or
obscene.
| Quote: | I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen.
|
That's because the Windows paradigm was kluged up in a hurry, and got
worse from then on. Decades before Windows has cobbled up, real,
solid, multiuser, bulletproof OSs had been running for years...
literally running without crashing for years. DECs OSs used an event
flag structure that made programs, basicly, into synchronous state
machines; Windows uses an event-driven architecture that makes
programs into asynchronus-logic hairballs.
The irony is that both Windows and the x86 architecture were designed
entirely out of the mainstream of computing.
| Quote: | Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
|
Well, that says it all. My products don't crash because I don't allow
them to. But then, I'm not getting rich off forced upgrades like
certain parties I could name. The only thing Windows does well is make
money; that's all it was intended to do.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Henry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:29 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> wrote in message
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
|
Some of the people at Microsoft write very ggod books about writing
software, or managing large software projects.
I guess no one has any time to read or be trained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Henry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:38 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:41cc43bf$0$6213$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
| Quote: | "John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that? I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen. Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
|
I have been involved in the past with serious efforts to replace aircraft
mechanical instruments with computer displays. If the OS crashes, people
die.
No Windows need apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Larkin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:55 pm Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:38:49 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:41cc43bf$0$6213$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that? I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen. Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
I have been involved in the past with serious efforts to replace aircraft
mechanical instruments with computer displays. If the OS crashes, people
die.
No Windows need apply.
|
One of my customers builds jet engines and their control computers. An
engine control computer is a suitcase-looking thing that's just under
the cowling, exposed to the altitude and temperature and all. They run
the jet fuel through the computer before they burn it, to moderate the
computer's temperature. They program bare-metal because they can't
trust any available OS. I think they are looking at QNX or Wind River
or something, but no deployment so far. All their test cell stuff is
Unix or lately Linux with VME i/o. They laugh at Windows.
In my company, most of our test racks run DOS.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Monett
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:09 am Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
Richard Henry wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | I have been involved in the past with serious efforts to replace aircraft
mechanical instruments with computer displays. If the OS crashes, people
die.
No Windows need apply.
|
Mechanical instruments have serious problems of their own, and "glass
cockpits" are slowly moving down to general aviation. One of the best
approaches is redundant systems, but they can have bizarre failure modes of
their own. Here is an analysis from Risks Digest on the Airbus fly-by-wire:
"According to Airbus Industrie, there are several ways in which
the exchange of data and/or a problem in one computer can affect
the other computer. Often the computers reset themselves after a
few seconds but occasionally a fault results in repetitive resets
or attempts to resynchronise. The fifth reset relatches the
computer, which will not recover without a power interrupt. Reset
breakers for manual power interrupts are on the flight deck
overhead panel. Dual resets occur when both FMGECs encounter
failures at the same time. They generally occur after a pilot
entry that involves use of the navigation database or to an event
synchronised between both flight management systems. Latched
double failures usually occur if pilots successively perform three
inputs that cause a reset, or if an `impossible' computation of
predictions occurs."
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.96.html
Sounds a bit like Windows:)
Best,
Mike Monett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Monett
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
John Larkin wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | One of my customers builds jet engines and their control computers. An
engine control computer is a suitcase-looking thing that's just under
the cowling, exposed to the altitude and temperature and all. They run
the jet fuel through the computer before they burn it, to moderate the
computer's temperature. They program bare-metal because they can't
trust any available OS. I think they are looking at QNX or Wind River
or something, but no deployment so far. All their test cell stuff is
Unix or lately Linux with VME i/o. They laugh at Windows.
In my company, most of our test racks run DOS.
John
|
John,
I run DOS also and often need more than the 640k of base ram. Extended
memory is terribly slow if you have to go through Himem, but you can
bypass Himem and use flat mode which is much faster. It is compatible
with DOS real mode code, and it avoids the speed and reliability issues
of Protected mode.
One of the problems with flat mode is debugging code that addresses
memory above 1 meg. The solution is a small tsr that allows you to view
arrays and data anywhere in memory. Four markers are provided that can be
set by your code so you can see if data is transferred properly to and
from extended memory. Here's the url:
http://mrmonett.freewebpage.org/frm.htm
Best,
Mike Monett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles W. Johson Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> wrote in message
news:9klos0dbbj4u8tdjr14o7s35306ggrechs@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:30:07 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:iveos0pou4573r7brp8qt7vmcsnsahgb2m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:28 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
My point is that the argument that Windows is 'bloated' doesn't hold.
I bet that there are more PIC's running (relative) bloated code than
PC's. Programmers at Microsoft aren't that stupid.
They're not stupid, but, working as a team, they do manage to produce
prodigious amounts of very bad code. After a decade of effort, they
still seem incapable of preventing buffer overflow exploits, and every
generation of Windows runs slower and is more difficult to maintain.
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
The hardware struggles to keep up with the bloat of Windows. My
current PC has roughly a thousand times more compute power than my
first DOS machine, boots in about 20x the time, and crashes maybe 10x
as often. That's progress?
I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that?
Well, my stuff starts up instantly and runs 24/7 for decades without
crashing. The sources are more comment than code, so maintenance is
easy.
Every Windows source module has a mandatory header, that's supposed to
document the function, the author, and the revs. A typical module will
have some gibberish name, and in the header section called "Module
Function" the author generally fills in something like (I quote) "what
it says".
Comments are rare and, when they do exist, are often useless or
obscene.
I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen.
That's because the Windows paradigm was kluged up in a hurry, and got
worse from then on. Decades before Windows has cobbled up, real,
solid, multiuser, bulletproof OSs had been running for years...
literally running without crashing for years. DECs OSs used an event
flag structure that made programs, basicly, into synchronous state
machines; Windows uses an event-driven architecture that makes
programs into asynchronus-logic hairballs.
The irony is that both Windows and the x86 architecture were designed
entirely out of the mainstream of computing.
Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
Well, that says it all. My products don't crash because I don't allow
them to. But then, I'm not getting rich off forced upgrades like
certain parties I could name. The only thing Windows does well is make
money; that's all it was intended to do.
John
|
Actually one of the major problems with the Windows OS is that so many
Computer Science and bussiness manager types write it. They honestly believe
that grandma being able to use the computer is more important than the fact
that some computer expert will complain about a 20X wait for his computer to
boot. Personally I'd like a nice clean interface that doesn't use the hard
disk drive at all something along the lines of the old Commodore sytem where
the OS is all in ROM, though probably better make it flash RAM or some such
for the PC. I've thought of trying to develop a board that would use the
standard ATA interface and could save the OS to a memory set but I'm just a
computer programmer with some EET.
Charles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Bemelman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: what's a callback? |
|
|
"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> schreef in bericht
news:9klos0dbbj4u8tdjr14o7s35306ggrechs@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:30:07 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
It keeps pace with the hardware, it is not that it gets slower. On the
contrary. Win3.0 was typically found on 386sx running at 33MHz. Now that
was slow indeed. But if you go out to by a windows PC today, it is at
least 2GHz or better, and it does not run slow at all. Of course you
shouldn't upgrade software on old PC.
The hardware struggles to keep up with the bloat of Windows. My
current PC has roughly a thousand times more compute power than my
first DOS machine, boots in about 20x the time, and crashes maybe 10x
as often. That's progress?
|
Sure it is. Boot time as a measure of quality is ridiculous. I boot
once a day, sometimes perhaps twice, when Protel is playing up. The
other day you hooked up that $79 usb microscope, that's progress.
| Quote: | I've seen a bit of the Windows source code, and it's a mess. Windows
is simply bad programming.
As you once told, you don't write in C or C++, but only in 68K assembler
and Power Basic, IIRC. How can you be the judge of that?
Well, my stuff starts up instantly and runs 24/7 for decades without
crashing. The sources are more comment than code, so maintenance is
easy.
|
My embedded stuff doesn't crash either, it would hardly know how to
do that.
| Quote: | Every Windows source module has a mandatory header, that's supposed to
document the function, the author, and the revs. A typical module will
have some gibberish name, and in the header section called "Module
Function" the author generally fills in something like (I quote) "what
it says".
Comments are rare and, when they do exist, are often useless or
obscene.
I've written
a dozen or so of windows applications, and my first attempts were indeed
a mess because there is a lot you need to know. But the more I have
learnt
about it, the more I realize that there is no simple approach to make
all these little wonders happen.
That's because the Windows paradigm was kluged up in a hurry, and got
worse from then on. Decades before Windows has cobbled up, real,
solid, multiuser, bulletproof OSs had been running for years...
literally running without crashing for years. DECs OSs used an event
flag structure that made programs, basicly, into synchronous state
machines; Windows uses an event-driven architecture that makes
programs into asynchronus-logic hairballs.
|
All I remember from DEC is that PDP11/03 that gave me sore knees,
pulling the boards in & out to keep it going. RT11 OS if I remember
well. What a piece of shit was that ;)
| Quote: | The irony is that both Windows and the x86 architecture were designed
entirely out of the mainstream of computing.
Embedded computing is kindergarten stuff,
compared to what's under the hood of windows. Okay, it crashes sometimes,
big deal.
Well, that says it all. My products don't crash because I don't allow
them to. But then, I'm not getting rich off forced upgrades like
certain parties I could name. The only thing Windows does well is make
money; that's all it was intended to do.
|
You should not compare your embedded stuff with de desktop computer
running windows. Those are two entirely different species. Your 68K
does only one thing - easy. If I plug your software in whatever 68K
board, nothing happens, nada, zip. These are projects that can be
done by just one or two persons, that's why I said it is kindergarten
stuff compared to windows.
Imagine you had to deliver some kind of open system, where 3rd parties
plug in their boards & drivers in your box. Would you like that? Can
you still guarantee your product doesn't crash?
--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in