GhostlyDeath wrote:
Your OS has licensing issues:
- Your OS is GPLv3+
- GNU Classpath is GPLv2+
- Oracle's Classpath is GPLv2
You must either:
- Upgrade GNU Classpath to GPLv3+ and drop Oracle's Classpath.
- Downgrade your GPLv3+ to GPLv2+
Yes, there is the unnoticed license incompatibility issue. But actually the problem is related to the Sun's (now Oracle's) code. The GNU Classpath allows to use later versions of GPL. However the issue should be resolved and your notice is useful. Thanks for the point.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
Where are all the comments?
The comments are in the source code. If you have not noticed them it only means that not every source file has comments. The commenting process is ongoing and the situation should be improved some day.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
JavaDoc elements are also extremely helpful in knowing what classes, methods, fields, and annotations do.
There's no JavaDocs generated yet because of incomplete source code commenting.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
That class virtually only contains static methods! Where did the OOP go?
Do you want OOP purity or working system? If you still do not know the pattern of extending an interface with constants for using them without full interface name inserted then it is better to pay attention to such pattern advantages.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
That directory contains 144 files for every single byte code instruction, and on top of that all of those all contain static methods!
And what's the problem? If it is only about your aesthetic feelings then may be it is not the best place to write about your irritation?
GhostlyDeath wrote:
Code:
write_arrayNullPointerAndIndexCheck_dataAddressEDX_arrayIndexEBX
That is a very nice and far
TOO descriptive name of a method and consists of far too many characters.
Yes, the name is long, but it is descriptive. If you can use any IDE that is a bit better than a text editor then just press point button after class name and select method name from the list - in such a way you can save efforts for typing method name.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
For all your isWhateverOn() methods, you can replace that ALL with a simple Enum and use an EnumSet.
There are many variants we can do some things. And your personal choice is not the best. And insisting on it is something not very nice.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
In reality, your byte code recompiler should take logic in and output logic, it appears that you may eventually plan to add support for other architectures. Rather than implement every bit of an assembler, it would be much simpler to output instructions using abstract logic. If not, at least use some kind of table rather than 10,000 methods for every single variant of every single instruction.
As described in the "so long" documentation the goal was to emulate assembler in Java. If you consider this goal then you should understand that your solution is just not working.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
Too many directories, especially since they all contain /src/org/jembryos in them anyway.
It's just modularity. You can read about the profit it can bring to you.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
If you read the javac manpage along with the java manpage, you would see there is such as an option such as -bootclasspath?
It seems you are trying to compile the project under Linux using text interface only. It is interesting idea, but the modern IDE is much better way to write big programs. Of course, your habit is always for your service, but please consider to try any free IDE and there will be no problems with options and long method names.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
Quote:
JNode, SUN Classpath, GNU Classpath.
It appears that you fail to mention that you even include these, one has to look at the source code to determine this.
The inclusion is described in the documentation.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
Seeing that none of your code is commented in any fashion, and bumping into code that actually is commented such as in jEmbryoAssembler/src/org/jembryos/assembler/x86/AssemblerProgram.java, puts serious doubt on whether or not you've written said code.
It seems nobody in the world can tell the difference between a person's code and the code you can think is not written by the person. So you can claim your right on every open source project, because all the files there are at least a bit different. It's a very nice claim!
GhostlyDeath wrote:
In short: It seems clear that you lack programming experience, you really need to reconsider these basic points. Your code is complete garbage. The code is an unmaintainable mess.
At least some useful points about licensing is appreciated, but everything else is just your irritation, I suppose.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
You want businesses to use your operating system, but your mess has one problem. The only person who could ever work on your OS reliably is yourself and if you die or lose interest then the OS is dead and unsupportable. That is too risky for a business.
Please, let the business decide what is risky and what is not.
GhostlyDeath wrote:
If you spent your time actually writing good, readable and reasonable code instead of writing over readable design documents and forum comments, your OS would fare much better.
Good, readable and reasonable code is a very fuzzy definition. But you always can insist on it in order to throw your irritation on somebody else, it even works sometime.