[Qgis-developer] GSOC pitch

Nathan Woodrow madmanwoo at gmail.com
Mon Mar 19 08:30:32 EDT 2012

We must also must not get stuck in the prototype-that-becomes-full-app mode
where the prototyping turns into a product in itself because porting
becomes to much of a task.

Is there anything currently the Processing Framework that is stopping the
porting of it to C++?

- Nathan

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM, aruntheguy at gmail.com <aruntheguy at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>wrote:
>> I think porting to C++ should be a second step. As Martin has pointed out
>> several
>> times, prototyping, deploying and testing is far faster in Python, so I
>> would suggest
>> first finishing to develop the framework in py, leaviong the porting to a
>> second
>> time, if necessary. The plugin in itself is not doing any heavy
>> computation, so
>> execution time is not an issue here.
>> fTools could be reimplemented as an additional backend (using GEOS) of
>> the same
>> framework.
>> All the best.
> Of course I accept that development in python has a lot of advantages, and
> the language is not new to me. I was more concerned about the fact that
> development in C++ could yield better expansion of the native API so more
> things can be built over.
> In case we need to complete the task of finishing the Processing
> framework  in Python, it would make summer even better :)
> --
> Regards
> Arunmozhi
> Twitter: @tecoholic
> Website: http://arunmozhi.in
> IRC Nick: teco
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20120319/83ba0ebf/attachment.html

More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list