gnunet-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Windows implementation of fshcron.c


From: Krista Bennett
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Windows implementation of fshcron.c
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 04:22:37 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

jan marco alkema hath spoken thusly on Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 07:05:43AM +0200:
> Hello Krista,
> 
> >Yes, and if you'll read the previous e-mails describing why we chose
> Cygwin, this is ***high*** on the list.
> 
> I know Cygwin. I compiled a source in it once.

READER WARNING: Krista is frustrated again. Surprise surprise.

So what? I've compiled LOTS of things other people have written. It
doesn't necessarily follow that I have a clue about what they do or why
they're used just because I can compile them.

> A good thing of MVC++ above cygwin is that you can easely program the
> Windows GUI in MVC++.

You seem obsessed with the GUI. If the underlying gnunet code doesn't work
under Windows, the GUI is irrelevant. Anyway, there is also a gtk+ port
under Cygwin. By an amazing series of coincidences, gtk+ is also what
gnunet uses for its GUI!!!!! Isn't that amazing??!??!! You'd think we'd
actually thought about it before we decided to pursue the Cygwin route!

(Caveat lector: not that I've ever seen gtk+ windows work with gnunet,
since the windows port isn't, to my knowledge, that far along, but gtk+
DOES work with other windows software implementations. I'm just starting
to get extremely annoyed here. I think I'll write a cron job that just
resends my mails to particular parties every X months so that I don't hurt
my wrists and raise my blood pressure anymore)

> 
> >Enjoy. I've already given you the reasons we don't use MVC++, but if> you
> want to experience the frustration personally, you go right ahead...
> 
> Microsoft Windows 2000 professional is very stable. I don't think I get
> frustrated for a MVC++ port.

It has nothing to do with the operating system. I think you need to learn
the difference between an OS and a compiler. And even the *stability* of
the compiler is not at issue here. What's at issue is the availability and
implementation of needed libraries, functions, and services.

You may not think you will get frustrated, but it seems that you either
don't understand the issues or haven't figured out how a lot of things
really work. You're certainly getting ME frustrated.  It's really rude to
send mail to a list specifically addressed to someone who has already
explained the same issues to you before on that list. I'm sure there are
people who are out there silently screaming "just filter his mail already
if it bothers you so much and stop spamming us!". At least one of those
people is my other personality, who is currently taking a nap.

Cygwin was chosen for many reasons, which I explained to you AT LENGTH
about six months ago. Either you didn't understand the emails or didn't
read them, but I suggest you go back and give it another shot. I've never 
been married to the Cygwin idea (I'm sure my boyfriend is profoundly 
relieved), but it was the best tool we could find at the time to do what 
we need to do.

The "problem" with the Windows port right now is not the development
environment or the compiler. The problem is that the only person who's
really done any work on the code in months is Nils (thank you, by the way,
Nils). The person who is allegedly supposed to be doing the Windows port
has been on mental holiday, recovering from last semester's evil
coursework. This means that not a whole lot has happened except that I now 
understand what tier conflation is; trust me, that isn't going to do a 
whole lot for GNUnet.

If you can get an MVC++ port to work, great. Get to work on it and let me
know when you're done. Understand what the problems are in getting this
ported, and stop worrying about the GUI. It is the least of the issues.

Hell, *I* don't even understand what all of the problems are. But I at 
least have done enough homework to know what some of them are.

> >That's because there's an existing working port *smirk*
> 
> Where can we download this existing working port?

OF MYSQL, NOT GNUNET. Context, man, context.

> 
> >and you're welcome to try whatever you want *grin* If you get it working,
> I'll send
> you a cookie. Maybe 2.
> 
> First I want do a port on the current implementation of gnunetd before
> trying to get it working in MVC++ or Cygwin!

Um... you want to port the gnunetd code without reference to the target
environment or language? What, pray tell, do you want to port the code
TO?? Klingon?

Ok, clearly there are some things you don't understand here, so let me
explain this; if you take the same two pieces of code under both gcc
(which Cygwin uses - let's not mix our apples and oranges here. Cygwin is
NOT a compiler) and MVC++, unless it's fairly straightforward standard C
code which uses libraries in which the APIs *and* underlying functionality
are identical, it's probably not going to compile on both, and even if it
does, it's fairly likely that it's not going to behave the same way. MS
products seem to be fantastic at ignoring accepted standard behaviors when
they want to.

Furthermore, you are going to have to do a lot of digging around to
implement the needed functionality. What you may or may not need to do is
completely dependent on what is available from the specific compiler
you're working with. Since the implementation under Linux uses gcc, it's a
Hell of a lot easier if we can use the same compiler under a different OS.
Which we can allegedly do under Cygwin, although perhaps Nils has pulled
more hair out over this than I know about.

If you really want to *understand* this, instead of focusing on changing 
the DB/GUI/source language/compiler to get around the fact that the code 
is in fact complicated and will take several iterations to get working no 
matter which values you set these parameters to, sit down with your 
compiler of choice, see what doesn't work, and see *why* it doesn't work. 
Work through the code and understand what it does and why it does it. 
*Then* look at the available options and see which of these can most 
easily do what you need done.

I don't understand all of the gnunet code either; it's a LOT of
complicated functionality. Please make sure you understand what the
problems are before you advocate solutions, complete with random source
code. It will save you a lot of virtual breath, and the list a lot of
bandwidth.

The real issue at hand here, Jan Marco, is that there are a series of
problems that have to be solved regardless of which compiler you use to do
it with. The choice depends upon which tool is easiest to use for the job.
  
If I need to cut down a tree, I'm going to need a saw (or a lot of
remote-control termites). There are a variety of different saws I can use
to get the job done, but if someone keeps telling me that I should use a
bright orange saw without really understanding why the tree is hard to cut
down, I'm not likely to take them as seriously as I would if they told me
the saw had a more durable blade, better teeth, and was particularly good 
and cutting through the tough part of the particular kind of tree I was 
trying to cut down than the saw I'd chosen.

Either way, you can't get around understanding the code. This is not an 
"out of box" job.

(Why do you think I keep putting it off???)

- Krista

--
***********************************************************************
Krista Bennett                               address@hidden
Graduate Student
Interdepartmental Program in Linguistics
Purdue University
     
     "You're more important than a bowl of spaghetti!" - My mom




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]