Dave Tweed wrote:
> Marshalling data (and executable code) across an I/O interface is
> nontrivial in any language, but strongly-typed languages make it
> particularly tedious -- and arguably no less error-prone.

That's why I/O is usually not type checked.  Unless it's a higher level I/O,
like lines of text, it's usually just a sequence of bytes in most languages
and OS calls.

> So, you're saying that you're not unhappy because alternatives are not
> available (they are), but unhappy because they're not as popular as C?
> Geez, this discussion is more pointless than I thought!

You said there's always a alternative, but there really isn't.  There are a
very few non-C compilers for PICs, for example, but that doesn't help when
you have to link in with libraries defined with a existing C compiler's
calling conventions and read it's definitions from .h files.  And none of
them are directly supported by Microchip.

So yes there is a alternative or two, but only for small values of
"alternative".  Actually the only one I can think of off the top of my head
that supposedly is more than a toy is XCSB.  I know more work is being done
on JAL.  I don't know if it's far enough along to be production ready
though.  I have never used either, so I don't know for sure.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist