Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Let's say I created a great compiler that minimized human error,
> caught a good fraction of the ones that you make anyway, allowed you
> to do what you needed when you need for efficiency, allows for
> generating tight code, slices veggies, walks the dog for you, and was
> free.  In short, it does everything you want by definition.  Would
> you use it?  

Yes, if ...

> Probably not since you have to link to existing libraries with
> interfaces only defined in C .h files, 

... it interoperates where needed. The Win16 API used the Pascal calling
convention, and C compilers happily (or not... :) complied and made it
possible to use this API that used the Pascal calling convention. If
your language becomes successful, vendors will provide headers or
whatever is needed to use their libs with your language. Of course your
linker needs to be able to link in the most common library formats.
(Which is not really a language issue.) Since C header files are not
that complex, your compiler could be able to parse them, and you'd be
ready to go without support from library vendors and this would be a
non-issue.

And if it is standardized. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on Embed Inc.
If you want it to be successful, it doesn't only need to be good, it
needs to be stable. Only a really big company (Sun with Java, Microsoft
with VB) or an international standard (IEC with C and C++) can do that. 

Sun did it with Java for PCs and servers. Somebody else could do it,
too, for the embedded market -- it's just that nobody is around
(apparently) to bet the necessary money on this.

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