Re: [XForms] Xforms & threads-functions & others

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

Hi Sergey,

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:09:56PM -0800, Sergey Klimkin wrote:
> Now the program carries out tasks in view without use of Threads.
> Quite suffices available in XForms:
> fl_add_timeout (timer_ms, cb_timeout1, obj);
> It is easier and more reliable in work.
> Reading numerous forums on programming I has thought what to write programs
> on C today - an anachronism, all discuss C++ and Qt. In the big honor Jawa,
> C # and C-mono.
> There is it not absolutely so. And your messages will install in me
> confidence that programming on pure C not is "moveton".

While there's less stuff written in C nowadays it's still a very
useful language. I normally use C, C++, Perl, Python (and also Qt)
- it's all about what needs to get done. I would consider claims
that one thing is absolutely superior to all others with quite a
bit of skepticism - but it always pays to keep an open mind and
learn more about what's available.

There are good things in C (it's relatively simple and easier to
learn) and there are a lot of good things in C++ (which I miss in
C;-) And Qt is an impressive library with a lot of good ideas be-
hind it and it works on quite a number of different platforms -
while XForms has got the advantage of being relatively simple and
thus easy to get started with.

It all depends on what you want to achieve - if you need to write
a program that runs on Windows and Unix and MacOS then Qt (and
thus C++) is probably the best choice. If you don't mind to re-
strict yourself to Unix and don't need all what Qt can do C and
XForms can be simply "good enough".

> Now I use Linux Ubuntu 10.04, but at me critical remarks to its ideology
> have already collected.
> I attentively consider alternatives in a kind: ARCH-Linux, Knoppix and some
> minimalistic clones of Linux.
> It is not enough reading of documents, it is necessary to establish and try
> these alternatives.

I wouldn't be too concerned about that. All the different distri-
butions are basically the same. They are mostly like different
brands of toothpaste: the box they come in may look a bit diffe-
rent and they may smell and taste a bit different, but they all
do the same basic job of cleaning your teeths. A program you've
written will normally run under all of them. They all are Unix -
as an example: a program I wrote more than 15 years ago under DEC
Unix (not Linux), using XForms, still compiles and works without
problems under all versions (may it be different kernels or dif-
ferent distributions, 32 or 64 bit) of Linux (or other Unix sys-
tems) I tried.

> And for this purpose the considerable quantity of time is required,
> therefore I take a time-out.

I think you're seeing too many problems here;-) What you should
spend time on is getting aquainted with the POSIX standard that
tells you what *ALL* systems that claim to be a kind of "Unix"
should be doing. If you don't use more than that your programs
should work fine not only on all Linux distributions but also
on all Unix systems whatever hardware they are running on.

You will find the current POSIX standard here:

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

If you're looking for a more accessible book you should take a
look at either the updated version (by Rago) of Stevens "Advance
Programming in Unix Environment"

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Environment-Addison-Wesley-Professional-Computing/dp/0321525949

or at Michael Kerrisk's "The Linux Programming Interface"

http://man7.org/tlpi/
                            Kind regards, Jens
-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ________      address@hidden
   \_______________________________      http://toerring.de