Back Midas Rome Roody Rootana
  Midas DAQ System  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  15 Apr 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++ 
    Reply  15 Apr 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, which C++? 
       Reply  15 Apr 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? 
          Reply  16 Apr 2019, Pintaudi Giorgio, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? 
          Reply  17 Apr 2019, John M O'Donnell, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? 
             Reply  22 Apr 2019, Pintaudi Giorgio, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? example.cpp
                Reply  23 Apr 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? 
       Reply  11 May 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++, which C++? 
    Reply  22 May 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, switch of MIDAS to C++ 
       Reply  05 Jun 2019, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, MIDAS switched to C++ 
          Reply  17 May 2022, Razvan Stefan Gornea, Info, MIDAS switched to C++ 
             Reply  17 May 2022, Konstantin Olchanski, Info, MIDAS switched to C++ 
                Reply  17 May 2022, Ben Smith, Info, MIDAS switched to C++ 
Message ID: 1522     Entry time: 16 Apr 2019     In reply to: 1521
Author: Pintaudi Giorgio 
Topic: Info 
Subject: switch of MIDAS to C++, how much C++? 
Dear Konstantin,

even if I am still quite young and have only limited experience (but not null), I would like to give my two cents. I have reflected a bit about the C++ issue, also because I am developing a 
brand new MIDAS interface for the WAGASCI-T2K experiment, and I feel that the future of MIDAS could influence the future of our DAQ system, too. I'll start from the conclusions: I completely 
agree with you on a practical level, even if I kind of disagree on an "ethical" level.

What you propose in essence is to migrate the MIDAS core from pure C to a version of C with some fancy C++ features. Let's say a kind of C+ with only one plus. Theoretically speaking, even if 
on the surface C and C++ are very similar, they are completely different languages and require different mindsets (and I am sure that everyone is aware of it). This is the reason why even if I 
would have preferred to develop the MIDAS frontend for our experiment in C++, I have chosen to stick to pure C because I feel that MIDAS is still very C-like in its architecture (or from what 
I can see from the documentation). So I wanted to "keep on track" for better internal coherence. What I mean is that, if someone told me to port a C project of mine to C++, I would end up 
rewriting it almost completely, instead of just modifying it (I really don't know how much of the MIDAS core has been written with C++ in mind, so if a large part of it is already C++-like, 
please ignore my comment above).

Anyway, on a practical level, I completely agree with your approach, because I imagine that a complete rewrite of MIDAS is off the table but, at the same time, some new C++ features like 
better string and vector handling are very tempting to use. Moreover, in general, physicists are more familiar with the C syntax than with the C++ one (but thanks to ROOT that is changing). As 
for the use of MIDAS in embedded devices, I have no experience so I refrain from judging. So, in the particular case of MIDAS, what you propose is probably the best and only option.

As far as the C++ standard to adopt, I would say that the C++11 standard is the best fit for the T2K experiment since the official OS for T2K is CentOS7 and, out of the box, it supports C++11 
only. Anyway, I acknowledge that there are many other experiments and requirements. For the records, I do development on Ubuntu 18.04.

Best regards
Giorgio
ELOG V3.1.4-2e1708b5