Re: After the first compiler/assembler...

kleinecke@astound.net (Kleinecke)
11 Feb 2003 02:10:10 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
After the first compiler/assembler... petegray@ieee.org (Pete Gray) (2003-01-17)
Re: After the first compiler/assembler... kleinecke@astound.net (2003-02-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: kleinecke@astound.net (Kleinecke)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Followup-To: comp.programming
Date: 11 Feb 2003 02:10:10 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
References: 03-01-090
Keywords: question
Posted-Date: 11 Feb 2003 02:10:10 EST

"Pete Gray" <petegray@ieee.org> wrote in message news:03-01-090...
> A question for the experienced:
> After porting Small C (and writing an assembler/disassembler) for a DSP,
> what would you consider to be an appropriate "2nd project"?
> - porting it to a different microcontroller
> - porting a different C compiler
> - porting a different language
> - development of a simple-ish RTOS
> ?
> I enjoyed the first project, but I'm not too sure what the best "learning
> path" would be from here.
> Advice and recommendations appreciated.


An OS. Doesn't need to be RT. The main problem will be design. I
suggest you clone MS-DOS version 1 (or CP/M). I expect you will run
into trouble using small C and will want to interupt the OS
development to implement another language. I suggest Forth. In any
case you will have a much better idea of what you want in a new
language if you have an application (the OS) in mind.


Good luck.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.