[jdev] Re: Windows stack

[rajeev k]

Hi,
I think this thread has become little bit OT :-( Thanks to all for
suggestions. Thanks Alex for the link. I asked of VC++ stack because of two
reasons. 1. I wanted to add XMPP support to my already existing application
which is written in VC++. 2. I wanted to know whether there is any stack
that is made for windows. In my experience I found that normally stacks will
be written for linux and finally someone willl port it to windows. Because
of this there will be dependency with many other softwares in linux like,
OpenXML, OpenSSL etc. I will need to compile these libraries also in windows
and distribute them. Which makes the binary size a little more big than it
should be. Can someone suggest a stack which has less dependency with other
libraries and is available in windows? (Any language is ok. I think, my
application will be able to link to stack dynamicaly).
Thanks,
Regards,
Rajeev K


On 2/20/07, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2007, at 07:18, Clive Holloway wrote:
> > Perl's 'problem' is that as well as being able to write clean, well
> > thought out code, it's just as easy to write a mess. Java, for
> > example, forces a lot more rules on you, and it has real OO, so
> > mistakes that can easily be made in Perl just can't be made in Java.
>
> This is actually the reason I advocate using Java for things, C# (and
> even C++ to some extent) over Perl, Python, Ruby etc. The latter set
> of 'expressive' languages require every person who touches (and often
> reads) the code to be a great programmer, or all hell breaks loose.
> This is simply not true with Java. So while I, along with every other
> programmer out there, believe that I am personally a great programmer
> and can use all the powerful features of any language that is thrown
> at me (this is rhetoric), I realise that everyone else sucks in
> comparison (this is a standard belief among programmers, I don't
> really subscribe to it - anymore). As such, I really think it's worth
> coding in a constraining language wherever less than brilliant
> programmers are involved (or anyone who has a bad day), because the
> original setup time of not being able to use the full expressiveness
> is made up later in (particularly large) projects, in terms of being
> able to read and understand the restricted code. If you know you'll
> always have a brilliant team, or it's a smallish project, or etc etc
> etc, it can be appropriate to use the expressive languages, but I
> think of these as sharp knifes, and programmers as people - you don't
> give the sharpest knifes to kids, or they'll hurt themselves (or you)
> - give them plastic knifes and they'll take a little longer to cut
> their food, but at least you won't spend the night in A&E.
>
> Now, I've been quite careful (and I hope I've succeeded) in
> explaining one reason for not picking expressive languages without
> offense to the people who do. I'd ask others participating in the
> conversation to please try and temper their replies too - we probably
> have someone subscribed to this list for just about every language
> going and we certainly have C/C++ coders here, so please don't attack
> their lifestyles too directly, they're people too (mostly) :)
>
> /K
> --
> Kevin Smith
> Psi XMPP client project leader - http://psi-im.org
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20070220/7506ffdd/attachment-0002.htm>