newsuser@LTH.Se (LTH network news server) (02/27/89)
We all want good, reusable C++ class libraries, and other useful tools. I've expected to see a lot, but so far in vain. Now it's time to find out! If you have any code you think is useful, or have heard of some, try to answer the questions below. I won't mind how ``trivial'' it may look -- I want to see hundereds of linked list classes. Include any other tools, class browsers, debuggers, you name it. Even if your code is not generally available, please reply -- it would be interesting to know what's going on. Mail your replies to: dag@control.lth.se ...!mcvax!enea!control.lth.se!dag I will distribute a catalog soon. Your cooperation is needed! Dag M. Bruck Department of Automatic Control, Lund, Sweden --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C++ LIBRARY/TOOL SURVEY FORM Name: Type: class library/development tool/other Description: Machine(s): Compiler(s): Other requirements: Availability: real product/hack/under development Costs money: yes/no/public domain Contact: Do you want it ``published'' in the catalog? yes/no Other comments: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Automatic Control Internet: dag@control.lth.se Lund Institute of Technology P. O. Box 118 Phone: +46 46-108779 S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Fax: +46 46-138118
orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) (03/01/89)
In article <1989Feb27.090941.18193@LTH.Se> dag@Control.LTH.Se (Dag Bruck) writes: >We all want good, reusable C++ class libraries, and other useful tools. >I've expected to see a lot, but so far in vain. Now it's time to find out! > >If you have any code you think is useful, or have heard of some, try to >answer the questions below. I won't mind how ``trivial'' it may look -- >I want to see hundereds of linked list classes. Include any other tools, >class browsers, debuggers, you name it. Even if your code is not >generally available, please reply -- it would be interesting to know >what's going on. One thing that you should point out is that the code doesn't need to be good. I have discussed with various people why OOP class sharing hasn't taken off in the way it was expected to, one of the main reasons I've found is self conciousness, that is they don't want people to see the disgusting hacks that most programmers produce. When I'm reusing code I don't really care if it is disgusting, all I want o do is use it! It would be good if you could emphasis this (unless you disagree of course.) Another problem is that people are "just getting around to documenting the code". Code is pretty naff without documentation, but it is still useful. I find it easier to read code that write it, so I'm prepared to do a bit of work to document the code myself. i.e. code with no documetation is better than no code at all. And if the writter ever gets around to documenting the code, this could also be made avaliable (in fact, someone else, who had done the work to understand the code could even write the documentation and make it avaliable.) One thing you don't make clear is how to get hold of the code and documentation. What might be good would be if someone became an editor, and perhaps posted regular digests in comp.unix.sources (I supposed this would have to be discussed with the moderator though). Comments anyone? ==Fraser Orr ( Dept C.S., Univ. Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK) UseNet: {uk}!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!orr JANET: orr@uk.ac.glasgow.cs ARPANet(preferred xAtlantic): orr%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
newsuser@LTH.Se (LTH network news server) (03/05/89)
In article <2491@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) writes: >In article <1989Feb27.090941.18193@LTH.Se> dag@Control.LTH.Se (Dag Bruck) writes: >>We all want good, reusable C++ class libraries, and other useful tools. >>I've expected to see a lot, but so far in vain. Now it's time to find out! > >One thing that you should point out is that the code doesn't need to be >good. Right, I will make my own linked-list library available. It is a re-write of some old Ada code that never compiled because the Ada compiler was brain damaged. Can you think of a more disgusting heritage (:-) ? I have so far received 10 answers. C'mon folks! >One thing you don't make clear is how to get hold of the code and >documentation. What might be good would be if someone became an editor, >and perhaps posted regular digests in comp.unix.sources. This is a good idea. I will not do it! Dag Bruck -- Department of Automatic Control Internet: dag@control.lth.se Lund Institute of Technology P. O. Box 118 Phone: +46 46-108779 S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Fax: +46 46-138118
johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu (03/09/89)
Code that hasn't been reused is probably not very good yet. Thus, the code that you write is always "not good enough to share". Sharing makes it good, because people generalize and rewrite to make the code clearer. Of course, people can just add to a library instead of rewriting it, and entropy eventually takes over. However, libraries provide experimental evidence necessary to develop generalized designs, so sharing code and letting others reuse it is a good way to come up with reusable software. The best documentation that I have seen was written by someone trying to understand the code. Once you figure out the code, you document those things that were hard to understand.