Hi All- Well, if you are going to write it, I suggest that you keep the structure in XML. The GUI would translate this to the display, and manipulate it. Any compilers could use XSLT to transform the XML in the appropriate language. David PS- I only know a tiny bit about all this, but it is a nice standard to aspire to. XML = "Extensible Markup Language", like HTML except you can define your own tags. For example OpenOffice uses XML as its document format, which is cool because it a) has an open document format specification so you can work with it, and b) you can use XML tools to work with it. XSLT = "XML Stylesheet Language Transformation". XSL is a language that is used to transform documents in XML into some other form, like HTML or PDF or whatever you want. Stef Mientki wrote: > hi Anthony, > > I love the idea, not only for PICs, but also for all kind off other > programm generating (PICs, Windows, Delphi, PHP, Java, ASP, > hardware-design, process-flow in organizations ,...). > When I think of FSM, a graphical user interface is a *must* in my > opinion. > > Without graphical user-interface / presentation FSM it's just another > tool for technician, > not any better then the current programming languages. > > With a graphical user interface / presentation, FSM becomes a tool that > brings a technician and the end-user much closer to each other. A > graphical FSM can be understood and made by non-technicians ! > (Oh oh, ... now no one in this newsgroup will favor for FSM anymore ;-) > Besides that, with a graphical FSM, documentation of a project is almost > done automatically. > > There will always be some (small) parts which are not covered very well > by FSM, > so you still have to dig into the language/structure below. But that > yields for every higher abstraction level. > For PICs I use JAL, and I always write the complete functionality first > in JAL. Then when resource demand is too high (either time or spcae), I > convert small parts into streamlined assembler. > > Making my own FSM is still on my wishlist (because I cann't find the > tool I would like to have), > so maybe I could be of some help. > What operating systems should the FSM work on ? > What kind of license are you thinking of ? > (What kind of tools do you have in mind for developping the FSM ?) > > Stef Mientki > > Anthony Toft wrote: > >> A ways back there was some discussion on the use of finite state >> machines (FSM) in designing software for the PIC. >> >> I have been thinking about writing a compiler for the PIC basically >> since I started messing with them, but there are several out there or in >> the works... >> >> So I have decided to make an FSM compiler, you define the FSM in a >> structured language, and the resulting ASM makes the pic behave as >> described. >> >> Is there any need for this? If there is and you'd use it, what would you >> like to see in it? What language would you like to see it modeled on (C, >> Pascal)? How would you like it to look (file structure)? What features >> would you like to see? >> >> Anthony >> -- >> Anthony Toft >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.