On 28/07/2011 20:28, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> First I think as a language Jal is much more like C or Pascal than
> Basic. It is of course different in the fact that it is not backed by a
> company but by a bunch of volunteers.
>
> As for the 'room' for various languages (or chips, IDEs, PCB/schematic
> programs, etc): you can theorize to your hearts content, but the real
> test is the world 'out there'...
>
> My E0.01 of theorizing: there is always room for a spectrum of
> languages, ranging from the 'easy for a small program, but hard for a
> large one' (BASIC seems to rule here) to 'hard to start, but you can
> write big applications without too much trouble' (on PICs for most
> people this means C).

Yes, all agreed.

The main advantages of C is that there is
:: so much stuff written in it
:: On virtually every CPU and Platform
:: Quite efficient and fast except on CPUs without  a real user stack.
:: Assembler like bit operations (because it's really a machine=20
independent Macro Assembler).

But it's not as readable as JAL, BASIC, Ada, Modula-2, Pascal etc.=20
Especially if people write in a "traditional" C style.

JAL is unusual as really it was developed for the 10F/12F/16F family=20
(and thus is good for 18F too). A "JAL" for ARMs, MIPs, PIC24, x86 etc=20
ought to be different and have separate compilation, true Modules,=20
Objects etc to support larger projects.



--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.