On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:24:29 +0200, you wrote:

>>From: Byron A Jeff <byron@CC.GATECH.EDU>
>
>>Actually I have a different take on it: C really isn't suitable for
>>embedded systems programming. It's a general purpose language applied =
to
>>the task.
>
>Afaik C is a systems programming language and was designed as such and =
for
>that purpose. They did not actually know what kind of (PDP) system it =
was
>for so they made some features up on the way. It cannot be an accident
>that 90% of the operating systems in common use are written in C or some
>dialect thereof. It is not pretty and it allows you to rummage in the
>gearbox at will. That's what makes it so different from other =
'beautiful'
>languages which are less good for systems programming for various =
reasons.
>
>I think that the highly portable nature of C is due to the machine
>independent 'structured assembly language' concept they had to use to
>accomodate the wildly varying instruction sets of the PDP machines and
>other monsters they were using at the time.
..and of course the portability is a virtual non-issue for small
microcontrollers - maybe a marginal advantage in not having to
re-learn a new language  (apart from all the target- and compiler-
specific stuff...)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics