>>I’m not arguing for or against any particular methodology here, just
against the bag full of tricks that obscure intention for the sake of
code size or fear of the unknown.<<
I do not recall saying that I use a “bag of tricks”. I do understand the
reason for a good architecture and design. I also understand the
reasoning behind the KISS principle. I have seen more projects go late
and over budget and even get canceled because of the over engineering
and overly complex designs. Keeping it simple is always the best choice.
I will defend this position till my death.
Fear of the unknown in that I am unable to properly debug my driver in a
timely fashion; yes. Unknown in that I do not know OO methodologies and
how to use them; no.
In a service or other related UM component, C++ and OO is awesome. There
is a time and a place for everything.
The NT kernel-mode API is object based and lends itself to using C to
produce an object based design and implementation. Object based is a
perfectly reasonable methodology and does allow for code reuse.
In response to a previous posting. Why must I cut and past if I am not
using OO methodologies or C++? Can I not have a .LIB or DLL .SYS file
and reuse my components as well?
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Todd Flanagan
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:05 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: 3rd party Device driver development tool or pure
wdm driver development…Which is the best???
Frankly, I disagree. I’d settle for a driver with 2/3 more lines for an
architecture that’s 3 times easier to explain to someone who has to
maintain or extend it. If that means using OO methodology, then have at
it. I’m not arguing for or against any particular methodology here,
just against the bag full of tricks that obscure intention for the sake
of code size or fear of the unknown.
Also, just because it has been that way forever doesn’t make it right.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamey Kirby [mailto:xxxxx@storagecraft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:26 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: 3rd party Device driver development tool or pure
wdm driver development…Which is the best???Let me say this:
I have nothing against tool kits. Esp. if they are available with
source. My argument is against C++ OO development in a KM driver.Drivers should be small and tight. I think we all agree with this; it
has been so forever in the “black magic” world of driver development.
So, I content that if you NEED to use C++ and OO in your driver, maybe
more time should be spent rethinking the architecture and design.
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Jan Bottorff
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:38 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: 3rd party Device driver development tool or pure
wdm driver development…Which is the best???>If you want a tool that will get you 0-60 faster than your
competition
>could ever
>even think of getting there, use a tool like WinDK.I always thought it was appropriate to learn to drive BEFORE finding
yourself at the steering wheel of a potential lethal weapon going 60.
- Jan
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com To
unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ntdev-$subst(‘Recip.MemberIDChar’)@lists.osr.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@greshamstorage.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ntdev-$subst(‘Recip.MemberIDChar’)@lists.osr.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com To
unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ntdev-$subst(‘Recip.MemberIDChar’)@lists.osr.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: $subst(‘Recip.EmailAddr’)
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ntdev-$subst(‘Recip.MemberIDChar’)@lists.osr.com
