Re: [1-wire]Re: [Owfs-developers] What software do you (plan to) run on top of OWFS

[Bob H. <bo...@ja...>]

In message <200...@fr...>, Vadim
Tkachenko <vt...@fr...> writes
>Perl is not a right tool for complex projects. Java is the best rapid
>prototyping tool, and C++, though burdensome in development, has no equal
>where it gets to complexity/weight ratio. Java is way too heavy for small or
>embedded boxes.


I think this depends on what you mean by "complex". With Perl you can
achieve a very high degree of functionality, usually in a much shorter
time period than could be achieved by a comparable C++ development.
However, Perl projects do not lend themselves to partitioning between
more than a couple of developers particularly well. So if "complex"
means "a big project with lots of developers" then I'm inclined to agree
with you.

As for Java; it can work very nicely on small or embedded devices for
the right types of application - consider TINI.

In my opinion, one of the beauties of UNIX like operating systems, with
their "everything looks like a file" metaphor and substantial use of
scripts and text files is that their internal workings are readily
visible from the user environment. Having some form of script interface
to a facility such as OWFS preserves this. In contrast a compiled
development environment supported by libraries pushes you more deeply
into "API world" - the normal preserve of the Win32 developer, where
everything is still accessible, but only if you have all the sources and
appropriate development tools. This is obviously a necessary step for
complex (many developer) projects and closed-source developments where
you don't want the internal workings to be visible, however it's a shame
to be forced down that route for relatively small projects of an open-
source nature.

Just my 2 pence worth.

Bob