Friday, January 1, 2016

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 22 updates in 9 topics

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 07:16PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 07:22PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 07:26PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 07:47PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 08:11PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 08:12PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 08:52PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Dec 31 09:47PM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Jan 01 12:10AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Jan 01 12:17AM +0100

bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Jan 01 12:34AM +0100

Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 03:35PM -0800

Hello,
 
 
Here is my JNI wrapper for FreePascal and Delphi that i have enhanced much..
 
It's for Java, because I have choosen Java and Java is the best !
 
 
JNI Wrapper for Delphi and FreePascal version 2.83
 
 
Authors: Jonathan Revusky, Amine Moulay Ramdane and Salvatore Meschini.
 
Email: aminer@videotron.ca
 
Description:
 
This JNI Wrapper for Delphi and FreePascal provides a powerful and
simplified object-oriented API for doing mixed language programming in
Java and Delphi (Object Pascal language) or FreePascal. This may provide
an easier and more productive way of getting Win32 and Win64 features in
Java projects and integrating legacy code (at least for the Delphi or
FreePascal community). Please read the readme file inside the zip file
to learn more.
 
I have noticed that JNIWapper for Delphi and FreePascal was not
supporting returning of String and Arrays types from Java, so i have
implemented that and i have now enhanced JNI Wrapper to be very powerful
, so it's now supporting all the necessary functions and methods and and
much more... hope you will happy with it cause i have worked hard to
bring this new 2.83 to you, it is really now a professional software of
a good quality.
 
Also i have enhanced more JNI Wrapper and ported it to 64 bit and to
both FreePascal and the Delphi XE versions, here is the functions that i
have implemented and added:
 
function JstringArrayToDTStrings(jarr : JArray) : TStrings;
function JdoubleArrayToDdoubleArray(jarr : JdoubleArray) : TDdoubleArray;
function JfloatArrayToDsingleArray(jarr : JFloatArray) : TDsingleArray;
function JcharArrayToDwordArray(jarr : JCharArray) : TDwordArray;
function JbyteArrayToDshortintArray(jarr : JByteArray) : TDshortintArray;
function JshortArrayToDsmallintArray(jarr : JShortArray) : TDsmallintArray;
function JbooleanArrayToDbooleanArray(jarr : JBooleanArray) :
TDbooleanArray;
 
And don't forget to call TJavaVM.freeRef() method from Delphi or
FreePascal when you need to garbage collect and free the memory that was
allocated.
 
Language: FPC Pascal v2.2.0+ / Delphi XE+: http://www.freepascal.org/
 
Operating Systems: Windows.
 
 
 
You can download it from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/jni-wrapper-for-delphi-and-freepascal
 
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 03:10PM -0800

Richard Heathfield:
 
>I realise that.
 
>Ramine, are you aware that you are gaining a reputation for being
>unteachable, illogical, and anti-social? And do you feel about that?
 
 
You have not understood my points Richards Heathfield and others...
 
 
What i am trying to do is to spot the right programming language that
is suitable for many programming categories: such us the web,
the GUI , and concurrent programming, and database programming, and Hard
realtime systems etc.
 
Now in doing so i have realized that C and C++ make the programming
life more difficult, because it's difficult to do some categories
of programming with it, so i have researched the web and i have
also thought more, and i have discovered that Java is
the best tool that simplify those requirements, you can do
with it such us web programming, and GUI programming, and concurrent
programming, and database programming, and Hard realtime software
systems programming etc. with easy, and Java is really suitable for
relatime safety critical systems...
 
 
I have searched the webm and here is the tools that you have to choose
for Java:
 
Use this Java VM for hard realtime:
 
https://www.aicas.com/cms/en/JamaicaVM
 
 
Use this Java tool for concurrent programming
 
http://www.contemplateltd.com/threadsafe/pricing
 
 
And use this Java tool for formal proving of Java code:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/perfect_developer.php
 
 
So you have to understand me Sir and Madam that Java with those
tools above makes your chance of surviving higher, and this is
what's really important in my and our life.. so i have finally choosen
Java and FreePascal and Delphi for programming and i have abondonned
C and C++ and Ada.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 03:18PM -0800

Hello,
 
 
Java have also given almost the same performance as C and C++
in the scimark benchmark, so it is really suitable for math
programming also...
 
So Java is the best !
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 12:48PM -0800

Hello,
 
 
Read this about C++ and C:
 
Dynamic Memory Allocation in Critical Embedded Systems
 
http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/30/dynamic-memory-allocation-in-critical-embedded-systems/
 
 
It`s why i think that C and C++ are not acceptable for realtime safety
critical systems.
 
 
Please use Java instead with this hard realtime Java VM:
 
https://www.aicas.com/cms/en/JamaicaVM
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 11:56AM -0800

Hello,
 
 
You must not to believe this Richard Heathfield of comp.programming
that defend blindly C and C++ with some stupid arguments.
 
Because read this, it`s the same that i was saying in my previous post:
 
 
``If you're performing formal verification before testing, you may argue
that run-time checks are a waste of testing time. After all, they are
never going to fail, right? Well, even with full formal verification,
errors might occur. The compiler you are using might be generating the
wrong code; or the linker might introduce an error; or the hardware
itself may be faulty. Even formal verification systems have been known
to contain errors. When we test formally verified software, any test
failure is symptomatic of a fault in the development process, tool
chain, or hardware. If we test throughly and find no errors, this gives
us confidence that the process and tool chain are sound. Testing with
run-time checks enabled (as well as without, if we intend to ship
without run-time checks) and experiencing no run-time check failures
adds to that confidence.``
 
 
Read all here please to understand me more:
 
http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 11:12AM -0800

Hello,
 
 
Sorry Richard Heathfiled of comp.programming,
i can not use C++ or C for realtime safety critical systems,
because C++ and C have to make it both ways , the way
of C++ and the way of Ada with its runtime checks.
 
Sorry Richard Heathfield, because of the lack of those
runtime checks of Ada, C++ and C have become dangerous
and not suitable for realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
My point is crystal clear.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 11:13AM -0800

Hello...
 
 
Sorry Richard Heathfield of comp.programming,
i can not use C++ or C for realtime safety critical systems,
because C++ and C have to make it both ways , the way
of C++ and the way of Ada with its runtime checks.
 
Sorry Richard Heathfield, because of the lack of those
runtime checks of Ada, C++ and C have become dangerous
and not suitable for realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
My point is crystal clear.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 10:50AM -0800

I wrote:
 
> values. Unlike Ada, there is no a runtime check to make sure the value
> is convertible to the new type. For example, you can readily "convert" a
> negative signed value to an unsigned value.
 
 
And Richard Heathfield answered:
 
--
 
That's perfectly true. For example:
 
unsigned long maxval = -1;
 
That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
---
 
 
I think Richard Heathfield that your argument about C++ is stupid,
because in FreePascal you have it both ways, you can have it
the way of C++ if you don`t compile with the -Cr compiler option
and you can have it the Ada way if you compile it with the FreePascal
compiler -Cr option, the FreePascal -Cr compiler option is suitable
for realtime safety critical systems where you have to constrain
the system with an unsigned int and you want at runtime to catch
the exception locally in the function or you want to catch the
exception globally, that`s what you can do in FreePascal and Ada, but
you can not do it in C and C++ , so C++ and C are not suitable
for realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 10:23AM -0800

Hello.......
 
I think i am getting crazy with C++, because in
realtime safety critical systems we must take the
programming seriously...
 
The following is true in C++:
 
1. C/C++ provide implicit type conversions between signed and unsigned
values. Unlike Ada, there is no a runtime check to make sure the value
is convertible to the new type. For example, you can readily "convert" a
negative signed value to an unsigned value.
 
Read it here:
 
http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/04/07/danger-unsigned-types-used-here/
 
 
But what i don`t understand is that unsigned int is a good thing
to have to constrain more the system, so how can we say that
we don`t have to use signed int as say the article above...
i am not convinced because if for example we have different
cases in the source code of a realtime safety critical system
that needs to be constrained to an unsigned int by using
an unsigned int on the left of the assignement and we need
also to catch this exception if at runtime we are out of this
constraint and we can catch the exception with FreePascal
with the compiler option -Cr, but in C++ and C we can not
do it, so this is why in my opinion C++ and C are not suitable for
realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 10:27AM -0800

Read again please, i correct...
 
Hello..
 
I think i am getting crazy with C++, because in
realtime safety critical systems we must take the
programming seriously...
 
The following is true in C++:
 
1. C/C++ provide implicit type conversions between signed and unsigned
values. Unlike Ada, there is no a runtime check to make sure the value
is convertible to the new type. For example, you can readily "convert" a
negative signed value to an unsigned value.
 
Read it here:
 
http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/04/07/danger-unsigned-types-used-here/
 
 
But what i don`t understand is that unsigned int is a good thing
to have to constrain more the system, so how can we say that
we don`t have to use unsigned int as say the article above...
i am not convinced because if for example we have different
cases in the source code of a realtime safety critical system
that needs to be constrained to an unsigned int by using
an unsigned int on the left of the assignement and we need
also to catch this exception if at runtime we are out of this
constraint and we can catch the exception with FreePascal
with the compiler option -Cr, but in C++ and C we can not
do it, so this is why in my opinion C++ and C are not suitable for
realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Dec 31 10:17AM -0800

Hello,
 
I think i am getting crazy with C++, because in
realtime safety critical systems we must take the
programming seriously...
 
The following is true in C++:
 
1. C/C++ provide implicit type conversions between signed and unsigned
values. Unlike Ada, there is no a runtime check to make sure the value
is convertible to the new type. For example, you can readily "convert" a
negative signed value to an unsigned value.
 
Read it here:
 
http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/04/07/danger-unsigned-types-used-here/
 
 
But what i don`t understand is that signed int is a good thing
to have to constrain more the system, so how can we say that
we don`t have to use unsigned int as say the article above...
i am not convinced because if for example we have different
cases in the source code of a realtime safety critical system
that needs to be constrained to an unsigned int by using
an unsigned int on the left of the assignement and we need
also to catch this exception if at runtime we are out of this
constraint and we can catch the exception with FreePascal
with the compiler option -Cr, but in C++ and C we can not
do it, so this is why in my opinion C++ and C are not suitable for
realtime safety critical systems.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)