Walter Banks wrote:
>> What is actually needed in embedded applications?

------------------------<snip>------------------------------------------------
>1 - They're all (mostly) in C.  Standards are good in the right
>circumstances, but unfortunately also become a refuge for the unimaginative
>and lazy.

Yep.  That's me. Lazy.  I've had to learn too many programming languages already
and I am loath to learn yet another one. YADL (yet another darned language).

I evaluated C in the early 80's.  A mixed compiler/assembler output for a 68000
showed me that I should add C to my toolbox in addition to my assembly language
stuff because:

1. It produced pretty tight/effecient code, allbeit not as tight as a well thought
out assembly language routine, but still pretty darned good. After all, if they
could make a fairly fast operating system, mainly composed of C code and that seemed
to be portable....
2. It was a "dirty" language.  I found the "weaknesses" of C actually an asset when
dealing with low level, I/O wiggling stuff.
3. It was getting popular by that time.
4. It "fit" a certian class of solutions mainly:
   a. gather some data
   b. run through some sort of algorithm, maybe with floating point numbers
   c. output some state/value according to the results of b.
   d. go back and do it again.

So, I bought a copy of Aztec C for C/PM and loaded it up on my S100 machine.  

The proof of the pudding is that I'm still programming ARM chips in C. Still have
to learn assembly language, but........

  Cheers,

   Rich S.
  
------------------------<snip>------------------------------------------------
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist