Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Software architecture design

[Tilman Baumann]

On 14/02/13 18:14, Conrado Miranda wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I've been wondering a couple of things for a while about the software
> (mainly the airborne). I wanted to implement a new multi-rotor
> controller I have tested externally and found that the code, although
> it's very modular (or at least it seems like it), it's hard to grasp.
> 
> The code seems somewhat like an object oriented one already, so I got
> curious as to why it isn't implemented in C++ to make it easier for
> new people to start understanding the internals. Also, I think that
> templates and classes would be able to replace lots of macros without
> prejudice.
> 
Oh look what you started. A flame war. :)

The problem (and the huge advantage) of Paparazzi is it's age. Things
work™. Old code is always rather messy.
I'm actually much more concerned about OCaml in the userspace. (And to
be honest all that fake XML. That looks like it's being held together by
shoe strings but that is a matter of taste or perhaps ignorance)

Personally I never found C++ easier to read. Abstractions feel like
distractions to me most of the time when reading code.
It might help you write code, after you spend a eternity of bashing your
head against UML diagrams. But perhaps I should succumb to the
advantages of a IDE.
And good readable object oriented code is not exclusive to object
oriented languages. The Linux kernel comes to mind...
Anyway, my £0.02...

If you are looking for a project that is heavily going down the object
oriented route and a project that is still young and can perhaps be
shaped into what you want it to become, perhaps have a look at PX4. ;)


Cheers
 Tilman