Possible topic for March?

[Rob Wehrli]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Alan Dayley wrote:

> Time to start planning for the March 4th PLUG Developer meeting.
>
> Below is the list of suggested and voluteered topics.  Eclipse is off the
> list because that is *this Thursday's* topic. (Remember?)
>
> If a volunteer does not step forward over the next few days, I'll start
> twisting arms of those that specifically voluteered.  How about it?  Who
> wants to present on March 4th?

Alan,

For March I can take on one of:

Design Patterns
Embedded Linux et al
C++ Programming

Or, with more time for preparation:

X11 (Xlib, Xt, etc)
Qt (Free Version)
Kernel Hacking/Debugging
Device Drivers Howto

My bandwidth is largely consumed, but the DP topic would be an easy one.
I could also do an XP (eXtreme Programming) topic, too.

Porting the Linux kernel to new hardware architectures is a bit outside of
a reasonable discussion as it really requires that GCC be "ready" (even if
a bit buggy) for the target CPU.  And, with the popularity of the Linux
kernel, it is very hard to find a GCC-ready CPU that doesn't already have
its own port! :)  There are oftentimes CPU "flavors" that haven't been
ported, but these tend to be less of a CPU-specific port and more of a
hardware platform-specific port.

If the topic were modified to "bring up the Linux kernel on a new hardware
platform with a GCC-supported CPU," then the topic becomes a reasonable
one for an hour-or-more presentation.

However, I do not want to monopolize the speaker's podium at the devgroup
if there is someone else interested in telling us about these or any of
the topics on the list or elsewhere.

In 2002 there was a discussion on this list regarding a "Blackjack"
program where its designer was a bit OO challenged.  Perhaps a topic on
"Effective OO Programming?"  This could be done in Java or C++, whichever
is of more interest to the group and the Blackjack example could be used
to faciliate the target application where everyone (more or less) knows
the game.  Using the same functional body of code would segue into a
design patterns discussion?  However, the appropriate angle might be to
start with a DP discussion using Blackjack as the basis for deciding the
DPs to be used to accomplish the task and then implement it using the
patterns to demonstrate the OOP?

If these are nothing more than Rob's random thoughts, please disregard! :)


Take Care.

Rob!