Well said, Dave. That's the whole point, not inventing an
"invalid" high level language out of the linker. I would
rather use C,JAL,BASIC or anything else  than
trying to make a high level language out of it. It's more
like an organizer for the assembler, that's of course only
my opinion. I'm sure others look at it in a different way.
VV

Dave Dilatush <davedilatush@COMCAST.NET> wrote:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get a sense here that you may be
>conflating use of the linker itself (i.e., working with
>relocatable code) with massive use of macros and conditional
>assembly (along with the linker, of course) to create an
>comprehensive, processor-independent development environment with
>a rich assortment of built-in functions (like Olin's development
>environment, for example).

>But that's not what I'm talking about, not at all: I'm talking
>about simply using the linker to make code more modular and
>easier to re-use, make projects easier to manage, and drastically
>reduce the amount of hair-pulling while coding.





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you re looking for faster.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads