On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:02:36AM -0400, Dave Tweed wrote:
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > > Frankly, between ubiquitous desktop computers, advances in compiler=20
> > > technology (and availavbilty), bootloaders, serial programming=20
> > > protocols, and inexpensive device programmers, there isn't much reaso=
n=20
> > > to put an interpreter in a chip any more.
> >=20
> > Perfect summary IMO. On-chip interpreters made sense when that chip was=
=20
> > the only computing power you had on your desk. Now the same niche is=20
> > adequately filled by cross-compilers for the same type of languages=20
> > (often basic), often with a heavy run-time library.
>=20
> What about embedded devices that are meant to be programmable in some sen=
se
> by the end user? Examples would include robots and test equipment ...

Even then the ubiqutous availability of PCs, tablets, and smartphones
facilitates using an external device as the access point. Even in the old
days of the 8052 Basic, one had to hook up a terminal to the chip to
program it.=20

At this point an embedded system with a Bluetooth dongle attached gives
enough connectivity to externalize any required programming environment.=20

My only, and usual, complaint is that I'd like to see more cross platform
and/or web based interfaces. I'd like to be able to program from my Nexus 7
if I choose to do so, for example.

BAJ

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

--=20
Byron A. Jeff
Chair: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.