Archive for March, 2012

TEST TASK ERROR

March 31, 2012

SATURDAY: A functional error in the testproj.cpp routine has been discovered, corrected and is available for download.  Anyone planning to use the TEST TASK (see manual) features of the Programmable Software Development Environment should download the latest version. Increased capabilities of the TEST TASK features are planned.

Can Programming Be Strictly Portable Relative To Language?

March 30, 2012

The activity associated with development of strictly portable methods of software development will be presented here. Included in this Portability effort will be Windows based C, C++, C#, and Visual Basic; and Linux based C and C++.

FRIDAY: The Programmable Software Development Environment is equipped with a Test sub-system which is quite comprehensive in nature but is difficult to use. One of the most difficult steps is the use of the “Define Test Step” program generation file (See Manual) and the internal pseudo-random generator to prepare the “Test Program Step” program generation file. I believe that I have a simple method for accomplishing this task. I will try to use facility to perform a much more thorough check/test of the various routine libraries.

MONDAY: The basic Test Definition File will be a source definition file with the random generator specification presented as a comment following the source definition command. This file will be read as an input file, not a source definition file.  On a line-by-line basis, if the actual random generator string matches the specification, the line gets copied into the output file. Otherwise, it does not.

TUESDAY: The basic software parts for writing the “Test Program Step” have been prepared. These software parts can be used to define both a source definition file and a software parts file. The next step will be to build and test the associated software parts library.

WEDNESDAY: I started to prepare the test project for the common name routine software parts kit.  The test project (*.tmk) is still a difficult project to set up. I do believe that I will be capable of building a generic version that can be copied and quickly modified. The The basic software parts for writing the “Test Program Step” appears to be easy to write. I plan to make a source definition file rather than a software parts file. Some modifications of the common name routine software parts kit to render it easier to test are expected.

Can Programming Be Strictly Portable Relative To Language?

March 23, 2012

The activity associated with development of strictly portable methods of software development will be presented here. Included in this Portability effort will be Windows based C, C++, C#, and Visual Basic; and Linux based C and C++.

MONDAY: The development CPP Class Base Library which prepares the class definition *.h file has been restarted. The associated script is being updated to include those defining the declaration of routines as defined in the associated routine software parts libraries.

THURSDAY: It occurred to me that I will be using the integration process with the CPP Class Base Library as a means of testing the routine software parts libraries. This is not a good checkout/test process relative to the required “divide and conquer test philosophy”.  The need for using the integration process as a test vehicle will be re-examined.

Can Programming Be Strictly Portable Relative To Language?

March 16, 2012

The activity associated with development of strictly portable methods of software development will be presented here. Included in this Portability effort will be Windows based C, C++, C#, and Visual Basic; and Linux based C and C++.

FRIDAY: I have decided to globalizing the command and status values. The modification of the common routine software parts library is next.

SATURDAY: The modification of the common routine software parts library has begun.

TUESDAY: The modification of the common routine software parts library has been completed. Integration with the CPP routine software parts library will proceed.

Can Programming Be Strictly Portable Relative To Language?

March 9, 2012

The activity associated with development of strictly portable methods of software development will be presented here. Included in this Portability effort will be Windows based C, C++, C#, and Visual Basic; and Linux based C and C++.

FRIDAY: One of the challenges regarding developing a set of portable standards relative to the definition and use of the routines is the fact that an argument can be a variable containing data or a constant. I am currently considering defining variables to contain the constants and then exclusively using variables as arguments.  This, on the surface, would appear to be obsessive restrictive. On the other hand, properly done, it would help the source code to be self-documenting.

SATURDAY: I have decided to use variables to contain both numerical and string constants. It will improve the self-documenting properties of the source and will “Simplify and Add Lightness” the development and use of the associated software parts.

SUNDAY: The software parts defining the argument list of a routine has been prepared for CPP.

MONDAY: The software parts defining the end argument list of a routine has been prepared for CPP.  The next task associated with the CPP routine software parts library is the implementation of the command values.  This set of constants is important relative to the communication between the called routine and the calling routine.

TUESDAY: To properly define the variables used to define the command constants, the scripts defining a routine declaration, routine, and use must be individually defined.  It was originally thought that these three scripts were sufficiently similar that a single definition could be used.

WEDNESDAY: I have already made the decision to use a global set of basic data types. This decision has already greatly simplified the software design process and the associated software parts libraries.  I am now considering globalism the command and status values.

Can Programming Be Strictly Portable Relative To Language?

March 2, 2012

The activity associated with development of strictly portable methods of software development will be presented here. Included in this Portability effort will be Windows based C, C++, C#, and Visual Basic; and Linux based C and C++.

SATURDAY: The preparation of the software parts for defining the routine’s arguments has begun. The status of a routine must be monitored before and after its use. This can be accomplished either by an associated status routine with an appropriate command argument or two associated status routines with no parameters. Currently, it appears that two status routines will be easier to implement.

MONDAY: The previously developed software parts of the CPP routine definition library have been modified relative to providing two status routines for each routine.

WEDNESDAY: The software parts associated the beginning of the argument list have been prepared.  When I looked at the previously developed CPP software parts for the arguments, I recalled that in some of the cases, it was necessary to use an address.  Passing a string into a routine as an argument is a good example. A string would be returned from a routine in a similar manner. I will proceed to define a common means of communicating with a routine.